The Education Gadfly Weekly

Martha McCall, Gage Kingsbury, and Allan Olson, Northwest Evaluation Association
April 2004

Researchers at NWEA have written a provocative report with major NCLB implications. Using NWEA's own database and examining 700+ schools in 22 states, they compared students' "growth index" ("the amount of unexpected growth of the student from one year to the next") with more conventional measures of students' absolute achievement status vis-??-vis standards. It turns out, not surprisingly, that the "growth index" adds extremely valuable information about school effectiveness, which varies significantly from school to school. Bottom line: absent a "growth" or "value-added" component joined to NCLB's "adequate yearly progress" measure, we'll end up knowing far less than we should about school effectiveness and student progress. Such augmentation would also inform the school choice process - else families might innocently select less effective schools that happen to have higher levels of absolute attainment - and would benefit high-achieving students who are already above the standard but may be spinning their wheels in a low-growth school. When the time comes to fix NCLB's shortcomings, the repairmen ought to take this insightful study seriously. To view the executive summary or order the full report, go to http://www.young-roehr.com/nweastudy/.

Bryan C. Hassel and Emily Ayscue Hassel, Armchair Press May 2004

This book, the flagship title for a new education series, is an easy-to-read reference guide for parents. It's divided into six steps (such as Get the Scoop on Schools and Make Your Choice, Make it Happen) that lead parents through the school choice decision-making process. It also includes the latest research on school quality, practical advice on matters like how to "secure a slot for your child," and tables and worksheets (termed "Confident Choice" tools) to help parents choose the right school for their kids. Imitating the "Idiot's Guide" self-help series, Picky Parent does an excellent job of taking the numerous issues surrounding school choice and condensing them into digestible bites. Look for it in bookstores, at http://www.armchairpress.com, or check out http://www.PickyParent.com.

Clifford Adelman, Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education April 2004

Tireless data miner Clifford Adelman has written, and the Education Department has finally placed on its website (albeit in a hard to find location), this whopping companion to his "Principal Indicators of Student Academic Histories in Postsecondary Education, 1972-2000." (For a note on the earlier report, see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=139#1718.) The executive summary terms it "a descriptive account of the major features of change in student course-taking in postsecondary contexts between 1972 and 2000, with an emphasis on the period 1992-2000." Sounds dull, yet K-12 reformers with an interest in teachers may want at least to check out part 4, which summarizes courses taken by those members of the high-school class of 1992 who were teaching school eight years later. Fifty-three percent of them majored in education and 80 percent earned their bachelor's degrees from non-selective colleges. The "course" they were most apt to take was "student teaching," which accounted for 5 percent of all credits earned - and an average 11 credits per person. There's much more here, not a lot of it encouraging at a time when "highly qualified" teachers are what we're supposed to be employing in U.S. schools. Check it out at http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/empircurric/index.html.

The Albert Shanker Institute and the New Economy Information Service
April 20, 2004

Offshoring - the exporting of U.S. jobs to other lands - has been much in the news lately. The latest report of the Task Force on Workforce Development, a joint project from the Shanker Institute and NEIS, contends that fewer younger workers and the impending wave of retiring baby boomers could create a "low skills equilibrium," wherein employers judge that only low-skill workers are available, tailor their business strategies to this type of workforce, and thus generate disincentives for employers and employees to press for (or obtain) better education. Sort of a recipe for moving into the Third World! To prevent this, the Task Force recommends creating learning partnerships of employers, employees, unions, educators, local government, and community leaders to implement training programs. A large part of this effort will be the creation of "learning representatives" to encourage program enrollment and advise fellow employees of the best training programs for career success. It's a wonkish response, not half so promising as efforts to make the high-school diploma into a true mark of skills and knowledge. (For more on that approach, get acquainted with the American Diploma Project). To read this paper, visit http://www.shankerinstitute.org/Downloads/taskforce-release.html.

Richard J. Coley, Educational Testing Service
November 2003

This cohort analysis of 4th and 8th grade reading and math NAEP scores calls to mind the quip about the dog walking on its hind legs: the impressive part is not that it's done well, but done at all. This is not a true value-added analysis, since the cohort variables are too numerous and complex to be controlled for - starting with the fact that different youngsters take the tests - but it does track the NAEP scores of the classes of 2002 (in reading) and 2004 (in math) to gauge their gains over a four-grade span. Usefully, the scores are broken down by state and by racial and ethnic groups. The conclusions range all over the place. For example, in reading, gains from 4th to 8th grade are strongest among African-Americans and in high-minority jurisdictions like the District of Columbia - a useful retort to critics (like yours truly) who relish taking regular whacks at D.C. schools - and many high-achieving states actually have lower gain rates. In math, however, minority students don't gain as strongly as white and Asian students, and across the nation, the achievement gap remains way too wide. Let's hope that changes being considered in NAEP administration and scoring will make it easier, not harder, to do this kind of analysis, since part of what American education needs is for NAEP to become an even more precise instrument for value-added analysis. Check it out at http://www.ets.org/research/index.html.

"Value-added study finds NAEP gains for black students," by Karla Scoon Reid, Education Week, March 17, 2004

Considering all the bad news and negative comments you sometimes hear about charter schools, you wonder why anyone would ever choose them for their child. Xavier Williams provides an answer.

This spring, Williams, an 8th grader at the Omega School of Excellence, a charter middle school in Dayton, Ohio (which has received grants from the Fordham Foundation and which I head), won offers of admission from ten prestigious U.S. boarding schools, accompanied by scholarships totaling over $1 million for four years of high school work. Now he and his family have the happy task of deciding where he will spend the next four years studying.

Xavier was one of the first students to enroll in the Omega School when it opened its doors to 93 5th and 6th graders four years ago. Omega was started by a group of community leaders who wanted to create a school that helped urban youth from tough neighborhoods develop the academic skills necessary to attend top high schools and, ultimately, the college of their choice. Today, the school serves more than 200 young people in grades 5 through 8.

Xavier and his parents chose Omega because they shared the school's creed that high school preparation starts as early as the 5th grade and that effective preparation involves more time in the classroom. Like his fellow students, Xavier had to get accustomed to being in school from 7:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday; and until 3:30 p.m. on Friday. He was also in school most Saturdays throughout his first year. Why? Because there are no shortcuts to learning. Hard work is the only path to success.

For Xavier, that perseverance has paid off in the form of acceptance letters from all ten of the schools to which he applied, including Cate in California, Phillips Exeter in New Hampshire, Phillips Andover and Deerfield in Massachusetts, Hotchkiss in Connecticut, and St. George's Academy in Rhode Island.

Xavier's tale is a wonderful contrast to recent reports (see http://www.freetimes.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1400) that 60 percent of African-American Ohioans drop out of high school. But his is not the only success story. Of 40 8th graders graduating from Omega last year, one-quarter were accepted to private and boarding schools with four year scholarships totaling over $330,000. All report great success in these competitive high schools. Besides Xavier's astonishing accomplishments, 40 percent of this year's 63 graduating students have completed the "A Better Chance" process, which tests middle school students for placement in the nation's leading private and boarding schools, and 10 percent have already been accepted at Culver Academy in Indiana.

Charter schools can work by setting high standards, and they do provide poor and minority youths opportunities that are missing in other settings. Of course, success can happen anywhere you mix hard work and high expectations - even in schools that serve the toughest populations. Xavier's offers of admission and financial aid are all the proof we need.

Vanessa Oliver Ward is director of the Omega School of Excellence in Dayton, Ohio.

Katherine Mangu-Ward penned a super essay in the March 29 Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/003/881iitwp.asp) that accurately describes NCLB's virtues, acknowledges its shortcomings, responds thoughtfully to several oft-voiced criticisms, and skewers everyone in sight for their bad behavior in recent months. This includes the Education Department's election-year "compromises" on several regulatory items; John Kerry's (and Ted Kennedy's) outrageous grand-standing on the funding issue; and the National Education Association's relentless campaign to turn this bold and demanding results-based law back into "the same old federal-aid-to-education programs they're used to, but with more money attached."

Why has the Bush team let itself be pushed into a defensive crouch? Mangu-Ward notes that "taken individually," the recent regulatory compromises "may be sensible tweaks to an enormously complicated law. But taken together, they could signal that Bush has decided to stand down and move into damage control mode."

It's beginning to look that way. A friend who recently heard a senior Education Department official talk about NCLB before a big school board audience termed it "the worst of both worlds. He didn't defend the things he needed to defend, and his effort to exhibit the flexibility that he thought would be applauded was only understood by a tiny fraction of the audience, and they didn't appreciate it. NCLB is on the chopping block, and before we know it, Congress will cave in to what they think is the Constitutional God-given right to educational mediocrity." It's a damn shame if the administration caves first.

Yet vigorously defending NCLB's core precepts and focus on standards and results doesn't mean stubbornly insisting that its every paragraph is working perfectly. We can already see that some of the dreams and compromises of 2001 will never produce the desired results - and that some of their unintended consequences are worrisome. This is no surprise, nor is it shameful. (Reread Mike Kirst's excellent commentary on how long it took, and how much fine tuning was required, before the simpler provisions of ESEA circa 1965 were being implemented as its authors had hoped. See http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=129#1610.) But the solution will entail more than tweaking the regs. It's also going to involve statutory amendments. Nobody on Capitol Hill or in the White House is ready to hear that, and perhaps we cannot realistically expect them to be before the election. So it's time for some responsible outside organization quietly to convene the folks who want NCLB to succeed - forget the NEA - to begin crafting a short list of high-priority amendments that can debut after November 2 and perhaps be taken serious by the 109th Congress. Meanwhile, expect tons more NCLB demagoguery, braggadocio, craven compromise, and grandstanding between now and Election Day.

Last week, the National Collegiate Athletics Association approved reforms intended to improve graduation rates among college athletes, amid an outcry over the horrendous rates at many schools, particularly in men's basketball and football (see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=140#1725). Building on its recent plan to require student-athletes to make at least 20 percent progress toward their degrees each year, the NCAA will punish offending schools by reducing scholarships and taking away postseason eligibility. This reform is predicated on calculating an Academic Progress Rate (APR) that schools must meet each year, so one can't help but notice the resemblance to No Child Left Behind. Unfortunately, this reform will also share NCLB's challenges, mainly the challenge of prodding people to do what they don't want to do. In this case, critics warn that upping the academic stakes will cause some schools and coaches to find ways around the standards, perhaps by ushering athletes into easier classes or (further) inflating their grades. The fundamental problem is that too many schools don't care if their athletes are actually students, too.

"NCAA approves plan for reform," by Eric Prisbell, Washington Post, April 30, 2004

"NCAA flunking its graduation test," by Sally Jenkins, Washington Post, May 1, 2004

"Latest legislation could 'dumb down' college sports," by Mike DeCourcy, Sporting News, May 3, 2004

A pair of excellent articles in Education Week by Lynn Olson point to the UK for lessons on the pitfalls of standards-based reform on the one hand, and value-added analysis on the other. In Britain, an NCLB-like regime of testing and accountability measures has been in place for more than a decade, and many of the problems and arguments in that country over education reform will seem familiar. Does testing narrow curricula? Does it stress kids and teachers out? Do achievement comparisons between schools serve to spur excellence? Britain's results to date are mixed - which any reasonable person might expect from an ambitious and speedy overhaul of a struggling, decentralized system. Olson also examines the use of value-added data to track the growth of students. While there are significant quibbles with the way added "value" is measured, she makes clear that the wealth of information and data that a value-added system provides schools and teachers can help to drive innovative and unprecedented improvements in teaching. Let's hope American educators are reading.

"England refines accountability reforms," by Lynn Olson, Education Week, May 5, 2004

"Value lessons," by Lynn Olson, Education Week, May 5, 2004

Big news for Colorado charter schools. That state's legislature has just passed two bills packed with useful charter law reforms. One creates a Colorado State Charter Institute to sponsor charter schools, removing local districts from their monopoly over that key role. The other eliminates caps on the number of charter schools in Colorado, bars enrollment caps, seeks to ensure equitable funding for charters, and brings charter school accountability more in line with state and federal requirements. Governor Bill Owens is expected to sign them posthaste.

HB 1362, Colorado General Assembly

HB 1141, Colorado General Assembly

A rosebud to our friends at the Progressive Policy Institute for the launch of "Eduwonk," a daily blog on education issues. It's peppered with smart and witty comments on the education news of the day, perfect for those who just can't wait the full seven days for the next Gadfly. Check it out at http://www.eduwonk.com.

Sobering thoughts from Frederick Hess on why the new D.C. voucher program won't have the hoped-for effect of reforming the public school system by exposing it to competition. In fact, the new program shields public schools from real competition by capping enrollment at 3 percent of the school-age population, while actually adding dollars to the woeful D.C. school system - whose grave problems have little to do with the revenues coming into it. As Hess points out, having slightly fewer students actually decreases workloads and institutional pressures for everyone in the public school system, while exposing it to little true competitive pressure (e.g. job loss, funding reductions). Ed reformers do not go unscathed in Hess's article; "For many voucher or charter-school proponents," he writes, "'competition' is more a rhetorical device than a serious tool to promote educational excellence." To really use choice programs to pressure schools to change, the number of students in them needs to increase and, fundamentally, "parents' choices must deny resources to poor schools and bestow resources on good schools."

"Vouchers without competition," by Frederick Hess, Weekly Standard, May 10, 2004 (subscription required)

Jeanne Allen of the Center for Education Reform is her usual blunt self in a recent exchange with the editors of USA Today, who bemoan financial, curricular, and administrative scandals among charter schools and call for greater accountability for them. Allen points out that the fact that some charters have been closed is a sign that accountability is working - and places the fault for bad charters squarely at the feet of sponsors who aren't doing their job. (Of course some schools have closed because their founders just weren't qualified to run a school. Or it was a school that nobody wanted to attend.) She also calls for greater diversity in charter sponsorship - an important and timely idea that Colorado has just embraced (see below) - and for removing obstacles that many sponsors and districts deliberately place before charter schools. As if to prove Allen's charge, an Alameda, California charter school may have to go to court to force its district to release funding from a parcel tax increase slated for local public schools. District officials give no reason for withholding the money, besides vague assertions that distributing it might be illegal. Such nickeling and diming of charter schools is widespread and gives credence to the notion that sometimes the greatest obstacles to successful charter schools are the very districts that are supposed to be sponsoring them.

"Charters lack accountability," USA Today, May 3, 2004

"Resistance hinders success," by Jeanne Allen, USA Today, May 3, 2004

"Charter school feels cheated out of funds," by John Gelaurdi, Alameda Times-Star, May 1, 2004

Bryan C. Hassel and Emily Ayscue Hassel, Armchair Press May 2004

This book, the flagship title for a new education series, is an easy-to-read reference guide for parents. It's divided into six steps (such as Get the Scoop on Schools and Make Your Choice, Make it Happen) that lead parents through the school choice decision-making process. It also includes the latest research on school quality, practical advice on matters like how to "secure a slot for your child," and tables and worksheets (termed "Confident Choice" tools) to help parents choose the right school for their kids. Imitating the "Idiot's Guide" self-help series, Picky Parent does an excellent job of taking the numerous issues surrounding school choice and condensing them into digestible bites. Look for it in bookstores, at http://www.armchairpress.com, or check out http://www.PickyParent.com.

Clifford Adelman, Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education April 2004

Tireless data miner Clifford Adelman has written, and the Education Department has finally placed on its website (albeit in a hard to find location), this whopping companion to his "Principal Indicators of Student Academic Histories in Postsecondary Education, 1972-2000." (For a note on the earlier report, see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=139#1718.) The executive summary terms it "a descriptive account of the major features of change in student course-taking in postsecondary contexts between 1972 and 2000, with an emphasis on the period 1992-2000." Sounds dull, yet K-12 reformers with an interest in teachers may want at least to check out part 4, which summarizes courses taken by those members of the high-school class of 1992 who were teaching school eight years later. Fifty-three percent of them majored in education and 80 percent earned their bachelor's degrees from non-selective colleges. The "course" they were most apt to take was "student teaching," which accounted for 5 percent of all credits earned - and an average 11 credits per person. There's much more here, not a lot of it encouraging at a time when "highly qualified" teachers are what we're supposed to be employing in U.S. schools. Check it out at http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/empircurric/index.html.

Martha McCall, Gage Kingsbury, and Allan Olson, Northwest Evaluation Association
April 2004

Researchers at NWEA have written a provocative report with major NCLB implications. Using NWEA's own database and examining 700+ schools in 22 states, they compared students' "growth index" ("the amount of unexpected growth of the student from one year to the next") with more conventional measures of students' absolute achievement status vis-??-vis standards. It turns out, not surprisingly, that the "growth index" adds extremely valuable information about school effectiveness, which varies significantly from school to school. Bottom line: absent a "growth" or "value-added" component joined to NCLB's "adequate yearly progress" measure, we'll end up knowing far less than we should about school effectiveness and student progress. Such augmentation would also inform the school choice process - else families might innocently select less effective schools that happen to have higher levels of absolute attainment - and would benefit high-achieving students who are already above the standard but may be spinning their wheels in a low-growth school. When the time comes to fix NCLB's shortcomings, the repairmen ought to take this insightful study seriously. To view the executive summary or order the full report, go to http://www.young-roehr.com/nweastudy/.

Richard J. Coley, Educational Testing Service
November 2003

This cohort analysis of 4th and 8th grade reading and math NAEP scores calls to mind the quip about the dog walking on its hind legs: the impressive part is not that it's done well, but done at all. This is not a true value-added analysis, since the cohort variables are too numerous and complex to be controlled for - starting with the fact that different youngsters take the tests - but it does track the NAEP scores of the classes of 2002 (in reading) and 2004 (in math) to gauge their gains over a four-grade span. Usefully, the scores are broken down by state and by racial and ethnic groups. The conclusions range all over the place. For example, in reading, gains from 4th to 8th grade are strongest among African-Americans and in high-minority jurisdictions like the District of Columbia - a useful retort to critics (like yours truly) who relish taking regular whacks at D.C. schools - and many high-achieving states actually have lower gain rates. In math, however, minority students don't gain as strongly as white and Asian students, and across the nation, the achievement gap remains way too wide. Let's hope that changes being considered in NAEP administration and scoring will make it easier, not harder, to do this kind of analysis, since part of what American education needs is for NAEP to become an even more precise instrument for value-added analysis. Check it out at http://www.ets.org/research/index.html.

"Value-added study finds NAEP gains for black students," by Karla Scoon Reid, Education Week, March 17, 2004

The Albert Shanker Institute and the New Economy Information Service
April 20, 2004

Offshoring - the exporting of U.S. jobs to other lands - has been much in the news lately. The latest report of the Task Force on Workforce Development, a joint project from the Shanker Institute and NEIS, contends that fewer younger workers and the impending wave of retiring baby boomers could create a "low skills equilibrium," wherein employers judge that only low-skill workers are available, tailor their business strategies to this type of workforce, and thus generate disincentives for employers and employees to press for (or obtain) better education. Sort of a recipe for moving into the Third World! To prevent this, the Task Force recommends creating learning partnerships of employers, employees, unions, educators, local government, and community leaders to implement training programs. A large part of this effort will be the creation of "learning representatives" to encourage program enrollment and advise fellow employees of the best training programs for career success. It's a wonkish response, not half so promising as efforts to make the high-school diploma into a true mark of skills and knowledge. (For more on that approach, get acquainted with the American Diploma Project). To read this paper, visit http://www.shankerinstitute.org/Downloads/taskforce-release.html.