The Education Gadfly Weekly

For all its appeal, value-added measurement (VAM) of teacher quality cannot become our sole teacher-evaluation tool, not least because VAM-based evaluations are only possible today for about 30 percent of the teaching force (basically reading and math teachers of third through eighth graders). So what to do about the rest? As detailed by ace Ed Week reporter Stephen Sawchuck, content-area experts, administrators, and even some teacher unions have begun to structure robust alternative measures of assessment, using classroom observations, portfolios, and teacher-created assessment frameworks. Rhode Island will be among the first states to adopt student learning objectives as part of its teacher-evaluation system; districts in New York have worked with their AFT-affiliated union members to shape teacher-evaluation frameworks. And there is talk in other states of using data like AP assessments to gauge student progress, and thus teacher effectiveness. This wonky work is exactly what’s needed if we want to transform teacher evaluation from a pro forma activity to something of a science. Still, it remains to be seen whether these new assessment mechanisms will provide valuable information, or simply produce another “widget effect.”

“Wanted: Ways to Assess the Majority of Teachers,” by Stephen Sawchuck, Education Week, January 31, 2011.

“There is a significant risk that the existing education system will co-opt online learning as it blends into its current flawed model.” That’s the main argument of this white paper by Michael Horn and Heather Staker of Innosight Institute. As the authors see it, blended learning—which is an education model blending online learning with brick-and-mortar instruction—is a “disruptive innovation” with the potential to fundamentally redesign American education. However, without targeted shifts in policy, the benefits of this new education model will be squandered, tied down by arcane statutes and regulations. To explain, the authors offer a concise tutorial on the varieties of blended learning. They identify and define six models, moving up the spectrum from the “face-to-face driven” model (which uses online learning as a supplement, like High Tech High) all the way to the “online driver” model (which allows students to learn remotely, so long as a requisite GPA is maintained). It is from these examples that Horn and Staker draw their policy recommendations. Some thoughts—like nixing caps on enrollment and class-size mandates—would provide but a modest makeover for education provision. But, others—including creating dynamic, integrated systems for better syncing among various providers’ content and services—may truly spell profound shifts in the way that students access education.

This new report from the American Youth Policy Forum and the Harvard Graduate School of Education challenges the “college for all” rhetoric that dominates much of the current ed-reform movement, making readers rethink the “college- and career-ready” call to arms. The report points out, fairly convincingly, that only 30 percent of jobs in 2018 will require a BA or better. But by forcing all students into an academic track that may or may not correspond to their interests and career needs, schools are creating bored, uninterested, and unmotivated pupils who are ready for neither college nor career. Instead of this single tracking, the report argues, we should create multiple pathways for students—both academic and career-based. Citing examples from central and northern Europe (the apprenticeship structure of Germany, the vocational-education opt-in structure of Finland), it urges an increase in employers’ roles in student learning so as to improve rigor, relevance, and business relationships. The report works better as a manifesto than a roadmap, but it raises an important issue worthy of serious consideration—and reconsideration.

   Photo by Webhampster

Twenty years ago, the notion of charter schools was the new kid on the education-reform block. Advocates saw it as a remedy, even a cure-all, for the ails of public schools, one that would both provide competition and allow underserved students to escape abysmal district schools. Flash forward twenty years and we see that this boundless faith in growing the charter movement has sometimes come at the expense of school quality—which has left a stale taste in the mouths of many, friend and foe alike. In 2011, the new kid on the education-reform block is digital learning. And its proponents would be wise to study the pitfalls—as well as the successes—of the charter movement. There are myriad examples to offer—and authors Erin Dillon and Bill Tucker do well outlining them in the most recent issue of Education Next—but some truly stand out: Investing in good data and research, avoiding bad bargains, and giving students choices while not relying on markets alone to monitor quality are all take-home messages distilled from the charter movement. So, to virtual-education proponents, Gadfly reminds: Those who don’t heed the past are bound to relive it.

For all its appeal, value-added measurement (VAM) of teacher quality cannot become our sole teacher-evaluation tool, not least because VAM-based evaluations are only possible today for about 30 percent of the teaching force (basically reading and math teachers of third through eighth graders). So what to do about the rest? As detailed by ace Ed Week reporter Stephen Sawchuck, content-area experts, administrators, and even some teacher unions have begun to structure robust alternative measures of assessment, using classroom observations, portfolios, and teacher-created assessment frameworks. Rhode Island will be among the first states to adopt student learning objectives as part of its teacher-evaluation system; districts in New York have worked with their AFT-affiliated union members to shape teacher-evaluation frameworks. And there is talk in other states of using data like AP assessments to gauge student progress, and thus teacher effectiveness. This wonky work is exactly what’s needed if we want to transform teacher evaluation from a pro forma activity to something of a science. Still, it remains to be seen whether these new assessment mechanisms will provide valuable information, or simply produce another “widget effect.”

“Wanted: Ways to Assess the Majority of Teachers,” by Stephen Sawchuck, Education Week, January 31, 2011.

The cri de guerre of public-sector unions worldwide is worker’s rights, due process, and fair play. Behind the lofty rhetoric, however, are institutions at odds with a society’s right to self-government. Born in the 1930s, public-sector unions were initially mistrusted by liberals and conservatives alike. In a 1937 letter, FDR noted that self-interested public-sector unions threatened government’s ability to represent the broad needs of the citizenry. Yet they gained much traction during the tumultuous 1960s and 1970s—with many Democratic politicians using them as a fecund source of political support. And they’ve grown in strength since, now representing one of the world’s most powerful interest groups. Confronting intrinsic issues with public-sector unions, such as pensions and tenure, will be a hard-fought battle, and not just in the U.S. For they are masters of diverting attention from strategic to tactical questions. Still, today’s era of austerity—and mounting anger about this privileged class of employees—may yet provide the best opportunity to try.

“How Public Unions Took Taxpayers Hostage,” by Fred Siegel, Wall Street Journal, January 25, 2011.

“Public-sector workers: (Government) workers of the world unite!,” The Economist, January 6, 2011.

For all its appeal, value-added measurement (VAM) of teacher quality cannot become our sole teacher-evaluation tool, not least because VAM-based evaluations are only possible today for about 30 percent of the teaching force (basically reading and math teachers of third through eighth graders). So what to do about the rest? As detailed by ace Ed Week reporter Stephen Sawchuck, content-area experts, administrators, and even some teacher unions have begun to structure robust alternative measures of assessment, using classroom observations, portfolios, and teacher-created assessment frameworks. Rhode Island will be among the first states to adopt student learning objectives as part of its teacher-evaluation system; districts in New York have worked with their AFT-affiliated union members to shape teacher-evaluation frameworks. And there is talk in other states of using data like AP assessments to gauge student progress, and thus teacher effectiveness. This wonky work is exactly what’s needed if we want to transform teacher evaluation from a pro forma activity to something of a science. Still, it remains to be seen whether these new assessment mechanisms will provide valuable information, or simply produce another “widget effect.”

“Wanted: Ways to Assess the Majority of Teachers,” by Stephen Sawchuck, Education Week, January 31, 2011.

“There is a significant risk that the existing education system will co-opt online learning as it blends into its current flawed model.” That’s the main argument of this white paper by Michael Horn and Heather Staker of Innosight Institute. As the authors see it, blended learning—which is an education model blending online learning with brick-and-mortar instruction—is a “disruptive innovation” with the potential to fundamentally redesign American education. However, without targeted shifts in policy, the benefits of this new education model will be squandered, tied down by arcane statutes and regulations. To explain, the authors offer a concise tutorial on the varieties of blended learning. They identify and define six models, moving up the spectrum from the “face-to-face driven” model (which uses online learning as a supplement, like High Tech High) all the way to the “online driver” model (which allows students to learn remotely, so long as a requisite GPA is maintained). It is from these examples that Horn and Staker draw their policy recommendations. Some thoughts—like nixing caps on enrollment and class-size mandates—would provide but a modest makeover for education provision. But, others—including creating dynamic, integrated systems for better syncing among various providers’ content and services—may truly spell profound shifts in the way that students access education.

This new report from the American Youth Policy Forum and the Harvard Graduate School of Education challenges the “college for all” rhetoric that dominates much of the current ed-reform movement, making readers rethink the “college- and career-ready” call to arms. The report points out, fairly convincingly, that only 30 percent of jobs in 2018 will require a BA or better. But by forcing all students into an academic track that may or may not correspond to their interests and career needs, schools are creating bored, uninterested, and unmotivated pupils who are ready for neither college nor career. Instead of this single tracking, the report argues, we should create multiple pathways for students—both academic and career-based. Citing examples from central and northern Europe (the apprenticeship structure of Germany, the vocational-education opt-in structure of Finland), it urges an increase in employers’ roles in student learning so as to improve rigor, relevance, and business relationships. The report works better as a manifesto than a roadmap, but it raises an important issue worthy of serious consideration—and reconsideration.