The Education Gadfly Weekly

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2009 science results are in, and the snapshot of science education in the United States is … unremittingly bleak. Across all states, 34 percent of fourth graders, 30 percent of eighth graders, and just 21 percent of twelfth graders are considered “proficient” in science. At the “advanced” level, that number dive-bombs to about one in one hundred. Scores varied dramatically across states: New Hampshire, home to the highest-performing fourth graders, boasts an average NAEP science score thirty points (or about two grades) higher than the Mississippi average score (out of 300 total points). In eighth grade, Montana and North Dakota beat out the lowest performer, again Mississippi—and again by thirty points. (State-specific results were not provided for twelfth graders). Data disaggregated by student groups varied as well, breaking across familiar lines—whites outperformed all other races, with Asians close behind (Asians, in fact, surpass whites on the twelfth grade assessment); males slightly edged out females; higher-income students performed better than their lower-income compatriots; and urban students trailed those in suburbs, towns, and rural locales. Most interestingly, though, are the twelfth-grade scores disaggregated by “coursetaking category.” Here, we see that twelfth graders with three years of high school science scored thirty-three points higher than those with only one year of secondary science instruction (the same discrepancy between the highest- and lowest-performing states). Typically, NAEP results are used to plot student-achievement trend lines across the years—from 1996–2005 the assessment kept the same framework, allowing for comparability. This assessment for the 2009 NAEP, however, is based on a new framework, making longitudinal comparison impossible. Regardless of where we were five years ago, though, it is clear where we are now: Our nation’s students can’t tell their fibulae from their tibiae—and in order to remedy that, they’re going to need to take more science courses.

National Center for Education Statistics, “The Nation’s Report Card Science 2009: National Assessment of Educational Progress at Grades 4, 8, and 12” (Washington, D.C.: Institute of Education Sciences, January 2011).

Perilous economic times—and the inevitable budget cuts that accompany them—beg for solid research on education productivity. This remarkably comprehensive report from the Center for American Progress gives states and districts strong quantitative ammunition in the education efficiency debate. In it, CAP evaluates the productivity of more than 9,000 districts in forty-five states according to three different return-on-investment (ROI) measures. To determine these, analysts used two measures: an achievement index (based on average proficiency scores on state assessments) and spending data (from the 2008 school year reported by NCES). Via the ROI models, CAP identified districts within states with low, medium, and high productivity levels (e.g., high achieving districts with low costs are “high ROI”). Each measure of ROI (basic, adjusted, and predicted efficiency) has its advantages and disadvantages; but all are methodologically sound. That said, there are important limitations to the study, including unreported—and potentially arbitrary—productivity-level cut scores and a host of potential confounding variables which currently cannot be systematically collected. As for the top-line findings: Analysts found, not surprisingly, that no clear relationship between spending and achievement existed in more than half of the studied states, even after adjusting for student and demographic variables. Further, the least efficient districts were more likely to spend more, especially on administration. Finally, the study’s author estimates that low productivity is costing the nation’s school systems up to $175 billion per year. This would be a fantastic call-to-arms, but this ambitious study stops short when it comes to fully disclosing results: It identifies by name neither the most nor the least efficient districts (of the latter, we’re told there are 400). It conducts a supplementary examination of urban districts that participate in NAEP but then tells us precious little about it. And it includes a nifty accompanying website but not a summary of the three ROI measures or a ranking of the districts in it. If we’re going for transparency around district spending—and looking for ways to improve said spending—shouldn’t we, at a minimum, call out the exemplars? Texas recently did; others should too.

Ulrich Boser, “Return on Educational Investment: A District-by-District Evaluation of U.S. Educational Productivity,” (Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress, January 2011).

Barring a scandal, school boards fly under the education-media radar. Yet these bodies spend nearly $600 billion in public funding and employ millions of Americans. This book offers a detailed and nuanced look at the history, practicality, and future of these darlings of local control—and asserts that they aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. While they may be outdated—like the mom-and-pop corner store or the local bank that holds your home’s mortgage—there is still a place for school boards in American education culture: They represent democracy in our nation’s public schools, and there’s scant evidence that we’d do a better job governing schools without them. In reaching this conclusion, author Gene Maeroff spins the reader through a whirlwind of education-reform debates, from accountability to teacher quality to funding—all through the eyes of the local school board. He provides case-study examples of successful school boards (like that of Denver Public Schools) and those that have been far less so (like that of Clayton County, GA) as well as scores of interesting data points. (Did you know that LAUSD’s school-board members who are not otherwise employed make $45,600 per annum? Or that the average school-board member spends twenty-five hours a month on board business?) In the end, though Maeroff acknowledges inherent and systemic flaws in school boards, he offers up reasonably mundane suggestions for righting them—including having appointed and not elected boards, and increasing professional development—leaving us still searching for the most viable governance arrangement for our schools.

Gene Maeroff, School Boards in America: A Flawed Exercise in Democracy, (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, December 2010).

Over the past decade, Lowell Milken’s Teacher Advancement Program (TAP)—designed to boost teacher effectiveness through accountability, performance pay, and professional development—has ballooned in popularity: It currently serves 10,000 teachers affecting 100,000 students, and rising. With this report, the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching, or NIET (the program’s administrator), offers ten lessons for policymakers and practitioners seeking to revamp their teacher evaluation system. Interestingly, while use of a value-added metric (VAM) is central in the TAP evaluation, it receives lower billing in this report. The majority of the lessons focus on professional development and staff buy-in: “Provide teachers with targeted follow up” and “Attend to the ‘human side’ of evaluation” being two examples. Perhaps the most important lesson pulled from the somewhat self-aggrandizing evaluation, though, is the need for an “evidence-based evaluation rubric balancing breadth and depth.” On this score, NIET highlights TAP’s nineteen-point rubric, and promotes its five-point scale of evaluation (which avoids floor and ceiling effects, while providing near all teachers with a trajectory for improvement). All in all, if you want to get beyond the rhetorical battles around teacher evaluation and into the weeds, this is a great place to start.

Craig D. Jerald and Kristan Van Hook, “More than Measurement: The TAP System’s Lessons Learned for Designing Better Teacher Evaluation Systems,” (Santa Monica, CA: National Institute for Excellence in Teaching, January 2011).

V. I. Lenin may or may not have actually declared that “the capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them,” but something of the sort is occurring nowadays between American educators and the Communist regime in Beijing. Consider what happened last week in Chicago.

No doubt it was a fine thing for Sino-American relations when the Windy City rolled out its big red carpet for Chinese President Hu Jintao on Thursday, much as official Washington had done earlier in the week. But the Obama administration deserves a bit of credit for engaging in some pointed warnings and tough talk about problems that the U.S. has with China, ranging from human rights to the undervalued renminbi to the support that China gives rogue states like North Korea and Myanmar. For all the glitterati (and rib-eye steaks) at the White House state dinner in Hu’s honor, his visit to the nation’s capital was no simple love-in.

But then he and his entourage flew to Chicago, which appears to have staged a love-in pure and simple, reminiscent of the city-wide swoon and Grant Park soiree that followed Obama’s own election two years back. Beginning with outgoing mayor Richard Daley, community leaders fell all over the Chinese as part of their multifaceted effort to transform Chicago from a city of meat packers and rail yards into the hub of Sino-American commercial activity of every sort. Chicago, it seems, yearns to be the place that manufactures and sells today’s version of the rope to which Lenin (maybe) referred. Included among the goodies assembled by the city was a million dollar Pritzker Foundation grant to bring Chinese designers to study at the Art Institute of Chicago.

But it isn’t just commerce and art at stake here, much less China’s immense stash of U.S. bonds and growing leverage over our national economy. Chicago also seems willing to turn its school kids over to Beijing—and Beijing is only too happy to help cover these costs. It’s not the only place in America where this is happening, to be sure.

Last Friday, he and his entourage visited Walter Payton College Prep, a decade-old, high-achieving, selective-admission public high school that focuses on science, math, and languages and which has hosted a “Confucius Institute” since 2006. This is one of almost 300 centers like this now operating worldwide. All are affiliated with and financially supported by Hanban, the executive arm of the Chinese Language Council International, which in turn consists of representatives of a dozen government ministries, including foreign affairs, commerce and the “State Council Information Office” which is responsible for, among other things, internet censorship.

Hu announced that his government would bring twenty Payton students and teachers to China this summer, and of course the kids cheered. Who wouldn’t relish such a trip?

But it’s insane to think this is only about cultural understanding and international comity. That’s not how China works—though any number of American educators seem oblivious or uncaring about this topic. The Chinese regime is advancing its own interests in the West—including Walter Payton College Prep—by, in effect, bribing school systems, educators, and students to see the world through Chinese eyes and, of course, to turn blind eyes and deaf ears toward anyone who might raise concerns about the innumerable threats that Beijing poses to America’s future.

I’m not sure whether senior Chinese government officials have much of a sense of humor, but I’ll wager that they are at least smiling at the gullibility, pliability, and naïveté of Western educators—and how cheaply China can buy them off. They are, one might say, giving us the rope with which they will shackle and bend us to their will.

This piece originally appeared (in a slightly different format) on Fordham’s Flypaper blog. Sign up to receive a daily compilation of Flypaper posts here.

The last time Gadfly checked in with Atlanta Public Schools, the board of education was under question for nepotism, infighting, a lack of adequate fiduciary responsibility, and speculation that teachers were cheating on state tests. Some months have passed, and it seems that each situation has come to a head. This week, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, the accrediting body for APS, placed it on probation. The ultimatum to the board reads along the lines of: Shape up, or lose accreditation (a move that may push Atlanta’s public schools to mayoral control). In order to keep accredited status (essential for students interested in receiving the state’s HOPE scholarship, or planning to attend college in general), the board must comply with a list of six mandates ranging from resolving their internal squabbles through an external mediator to creating a transparent process for selecting a new superintendent. (Their long-term supe, Beverly Hall, will resign in June.) Purportedly, they’ll also have to deal with the teacher-cheating scandal that continues to raise hackles in the Big Peach—and the practice of vilifying, ostracizing, and sometimes even firing whistle-blowing teachers. We tend to think of school board governance as intrinsically dysfunctional, but Atlanta takes the cake.

“Whistle-blowing teachers targeted,” by Alan Judd and Heather Vogell, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, January 23, 2011.

“Atlanta’s schools and a disturbing outbreak of common sense,” by Jim Galloway, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, January 22, 2011.

“Atlanta schools accept SACS probation report,” by Dorie Turner, Associated Press, January 24, 2011.

With some forty-four states and the District of Columbia projecting budget shortfalls for fiscal year 2012 (which begins in July of this year), some cash-stricken states are quietly looking into the possibility of declaring bankruptcy, GM-style. Although sovereign states are barred from seeking protection in federal bankruptcy court, policymakers are investigating workarounds that would allow states to get out from under crushing obligations—especially the Cadillac pensions and healthcare plans promised to retired public workers (including educators). By no means is bankruptcy the easy way out for struggling states. Even the conversation of such has reverberating, and sometimes destabilizing, consequences. (It could rattle the public sector bond market, for instance.) However, discussions about something as grave as bankruptcy (and the potential of public-union employees losing at least part of their pensions) may give state lawmakers an unprecedented amount of leverage at the bargaining table. Education reformers may no longer be able to buy off defenders of the status quo with sweet-deal carrots, but they may now have more power to make needed changes by waving this harsh but necessary stick.

“A Path Is Sought for States to Escape Their Debt Burdens,” by Mary Williams Walsh, New York Times, January 20, 2011.

Maryland, America’s wealthiest state, took a long, hard look at its overstretched budget. It dissected every line of public-education spending—which accounted for 47 percent of the state’s total outlay in 2009—and searched for places where it could make the hard cuts needed to save its school system. And what did it finger? Perhaps its generous teacher pensions and healthcare benefits? Its onerous rules and regulations? Nope. Instead, on the chopping block is the state’s recently created American government examination (passage of which was soon to be a requirement of high school graduation). In reference to the decision to axe the U.S. government exam, a spokesperson for the governor called it “one of those difficult cuts [that] became necessary to address the deficit.” Really, Old Line State? Of all the potential budget tweaks and trims, the one necessary to address the deficit was a cut that would undermine U.S. government and history education while saving a measly $1.9 million? Nice priorities.

“Government high school test may be eliminated,” by Jason Felch and Jason Song, Los Angeles Times, January 21, 2011.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2009 science results are in, and the snapshot of science education in the United States is … unremittingly bleak. Across all states, 34 percent of fourth graders, 30 percent of eighth graders, and just 21 percent of twelfth graders are considered “proficient” in science. At the “advanced” level, that number dive-bombs to about one in one hundred. Scores varied dramatically across states: New Hampshire, home to the highest-performing fourth graders, boasts an average NAEP science score thirty points (or about two grades) higher than the Mississippi average score (out of 300 total points). In eighth grade, Montana and North Dakota beat out the lowest performer, again Mississippi—and again by thirty points. (State-specific results were not provided for twelfth graders). Data disaggregated by student groups varied as well, breaking across familiar lines—whites outperformed all other races, with Asians close behind (Asians, in fact, surpass whites on the twelfth grade assessment); males slightly edged out females; higher-income students performed better than their lower-income compatriots; and urban students trailed those in suburbs, towns, and rural locales. Most interestingly, though, are the twelfth-grade scores disaggregated by “coursetaking category.” Here, we see that twelfth graders with three years of high school science scored thirty-three points higher than those with only one year of secondary science instruction (the same discrepancy between the highest- and lowest-performing states). Typically, NAEP results are used to plot student-achievement trend lines across the years—from 1996–2005 the assessment kept the same framework, allowing for comparability. This assessment for the 2009 NAEP, however, is based on a new framework, making longitudinal comparison impossible. Regardless of where we were five years ago, though, it is clear where we are now: Our nation’s students can’t tell their fibulae from their tibiae—and in order to remedy that, they’re going to need to take more science courses.

National Center for Education Statistics, “The Nation’s Report Card Science 2009: National Assessment of Educational Progress at Grades 4, 8, and 12” (Washington, D.C.: Institute of Education Sciences, January 2011).

Perilous economic times—and the inevitable budget cuts that accompany them—beg for solid research on education productivity. This remarkably comprehensive report from the Center for American Progress gives states and districts strong quantitative ammunition in the education efficiency debate. In it, CAP evaluates the productivity of more than 9,000 districts in forty-five states according to three different return-on-investment (ROI) measures. To determine these, analysts used two measures: an achievement index (based on average proficiency scores on state assessments) and spending data (from the 2008 school year reported by NCES). Via the ROI models, CAP identified districts within states with low, medium, and high productivity levels (e.g., high achieving districts with low costs are “high ROI”). Each measure of ROI (basic, adjusted, and predicted efficiency) has its advantages and disadvantages; but all are methodologically sound. That said, there are important limitations to the study, including unreported—and potentially arbitrary—productivity-level cut scores and a host of potential confounding variables which currently cannot be systematically collected. As for the top-line findings: Analysts found, not surprisingly, that no clear relationship between spending and achievement existed in more than half of the studied states, even after adjusting for student and demographic variables. Further, the least efficient districts were more likely to spend more, especially on administration. Finally, the study’s author estimates that low productivity is costing the nation’s school systems up to $175 billion per year. This would be a fantastic call-to-arms, but this ambitious study stops short when it comes to fully disclosing results: It identifies by name neither the most nor the least efficient districts (of the latter, we’re told there are 400). It conducts a supplementary examination of urban districts that participate in NAEP but then tells us precious little about it. And it includes a nifty accompanying website but not a summary of the three ROI measures or a ranking of the districts in it. If we’re going for transparency around district spending—and looking for ways to improve said spending—shouldn’t we, at a minimum, call out the exemplars? Texas recently did; others should too.

Ulrich Boser, “Return on Educational Investment: A District-by-District Evaluation of U.S. Educational Productivity,” (Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress, January 2011).

Barring a scandal, school boards fly under the education-media radar. Yet these bodies spend nearly $600 billion in public funding and employ millions of Americans. This book offers a detailed and nuanced look at the history, practicality, and future of these darlings of local control—and asserts that they aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. While they may be outdated—like the mom-and-pop corner store or the local bank that holds your home’s mortgage—there is still a place for school boards in American education culture: They represent democracy in our nation’s public schools, and there’s scant evidence that we’d do a better job governing schools without them. In reaching this conclusion, author Gene Maeroff spins the reader through a whirlwind of education-reform debates, from accountability to teacher quality to funding—all through the eyes of the local school board. He provides case-study examples of successful school boards (like that of Denver Public Schools) and those that have been far less so (like that of Clayton County, GA) as well as scores of interesting data points. (Did you know that LAUSD’s school-board members who are not otherwise employed make $45,600 per annum? Or that the average school-board member spends twenty-five hours a month on board business?) In the end, though Maeroff acknowledges inherent and systemic flaws in school boards, he offers up reasonably mundane suggestions for righting them—including having appointed and not elected boards, and increasing professional development—leaving us still searching for the most viable governance arrangement for our schools.

Gene Maeroff, School Boards in America: A Flawed Exercise in Democracy, (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, December 2010).

Over the past decade, Lowell Milken’s Teacher Advancement Program (TAP)—designed to boost teacher effectiveness through accountability, performance pay, and professional development—has ballooned in popularity: It currently serves 10,000 teachers affecting 100,000 students, and rising. With this report, the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching, or NIET (the program’s administrator), offers ten lessons for policymakers and practitioners seeking to revamp their teacher evaluation system. Interestingly, while use of a value-added metric (VAM) is central in the TAP evaluation, it receives lower billing in this report. The majority of the lessons focus on professional development and staff buy-in: “Provide teachers with targeted follow up” and “Attend to the ‘human side’ of evaluation” being two examples. Perhaps the most important lesson pulled from the somewhat self-aggrandizing evaluation, though, is the need for an “evidence-based evaluation rubric balancing breadth and depth.” On this score, NIET highlights TAP’s nineteen-point rubric, and promotes its five-point scale of evaluation (which avoids floor and ceiling effects, while providing near all teachers with a trajectory for improvement). All in all, if you want to get beyond the rhetorical battles around teacher evaluation and into the weeds, this is a great place to start.

Craig D. Jerald and Kristan Van Hook, “More than Measurement: The TAP System’s Lessons Learned for Designing Better Teacher Evaluation Systems,” (Santa Monica, CA: National Institute for Excellence in Teaching, January 2011).