The Education Gadfly Weekly

The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation 
September 2008

This report surveys college-educated Americans (aged 24 to 60) on their views of teaching as a second career. It presumes two things: 1) that we'll need two million teachers over the next decade to replace retiring baby boomers and fill behind the turnover of novice teachers (a presumption because no citation is provided), and 2) that we'll continue to staff schools as we always have (for instance, no distance learning). These assumptions aside, the report finds that 42 percent of the college-educated sample would consider becoming teachers. Among these, 44 percent say poor pay is the key reason preventing them from making the switch. What salary level might entice them to the whiteboard? Roughly 44 percent of the "serious deliberators" (the ones who'd be willing to try teaching now or in the next 2 years) say they'd want a yearly minimum of $50,000 or more. While some affluent districts already come close to that mark for new teachers, the average beginning salary for teachers in 2004-2005 was $31,753. But don't despair; we know there are smart ways to close this gap, including giving mid-career professionals credit for their previous experience by starting them several rungs up the salary scale. Or better yet: frontloading the compensation system by boosting starting salaries while trimming excessive retirement benefits. Find additional data in the report on where potential teachers would like to teach and who they'd like to be their pupils. It's right here.

The Reason Foundation 
2008

This report evaluates the recent rise of privatization efforts in various sectors; on the education front, it chronicles the expansion of school choice in its various forms. The news is good: more voucher programs, public charter schools, tax credits, special needs scholarships, and incidents of weighted student funding have furthered the cause of deregulation in significant ways. For example, student participation in publicly-funded private school choice, including voucher programs and tax credits, has increased 84 percent over the last five years. On the public front, there were 1.2 million students being served by 4,100 charter schools during 2007-8. Not surprisingly, charters have the largest market share of students in New Orleans, clocking in at 57 percent of schools. Southfield, Minnesota; Dayton, Ohio; and Washington, D.C. tied for second place with 27 percent of their students enrolled in charters. Funding schemes are seeing deregulation, too. In Baltimore, school chief Andres Alonso has started experimenting with new weighted funding formulas; Alonso will give principals more autonomy over hiring and firing, as well as cut over three hundred jobs and close a $50 million shortfall. All this and more can be found in this expansive study.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's head-turning education speech in Ohio last week was notable for stepping away from several planks in his party's traditional platform. The national audience surely paid attention-but did his fellow Democrats in Ohio? Doubling spending on charter schools, promoting performance pay for teachers, and removing poor teachers from the classroom may not be new ideas. But they are light years away from what Democratic lawmakers in the Buckeye State-including Governor Ted Strickland-have been advocating for the last decade.

Case in point: only one elected Democrat from the General Assembly has ever supported legislation that could be called charter school friendly, and she-a Daytonian-became a pariah in her party and ultimately bolted for the GOP. Yet Senator Obama sounded as if he may have snagged an advance copy of Accelerating Student Learning in Ohio: Five Policy Recommendations for Strengthening Public Education in the Buckeye State.

This new Fordham report calls on state policymakers to:

1. Create world-class standards and stronger accountability mechanisms. Ohio needs to build on its progress by aligning its K-12 standards with the knowledge and skills needed for success in post-secondary education and today's global economy and by benchmarking its standards against high-performing states and nations.
2. Ensure that funding is fairly allocated among all children and schools. To ensure that monies are allocated fairly, efficiently, accountably, and are targeted at the differing needs of children, the current system should be replaced by a weighted-funding plan. Per-pupil amounts would be "weighted" according to the specific needs of individual youngsters and follow them to the public schools they choose to attend.
3. Recruit the best and brightest to lead schools and empower them to succeed. Ohio should recruit school leaders from many different professions and backgrounds. These leaders should be fully empowered to lead their schools. They should receive substantial bonuses for improving student achievement and their job tenure should be directly linked to school performance.
4. Improve teacher quality. Open the doors to talented college graduates and mid-careerists, help good teachers become great, and create a competitive compensation system and sustainable retirement systems. Empower school leaders to engage, deploy, compensate, develop, and retain top instructional talent.
5. Expand the quality of, and access to, a range of high-performing school options. One-size-fits-all education doesn't work. Students and parents need the ability to choose the best school options based on calendar, academic emphasis, pedagogy, philosophy, and technology. Public-education alternatives also provide needed competition to traditional schools so that all schools can improve. The state also needs to strengthen its capacity to overhaul and close schools that persistently fail to deliver results.

Since Governor Strickland, after two years in office, has yet to set forth his own education plan, perhaps the leader of his party can assist. Strickland's own just-concluded 12-city "listening" tour of the state yielded the same-old same-old establishment bromides for fixing Ohio schools: more money, heavier regulation of schools of choice, caps on new charters, and diminished emphasis on standards and accountability.

What accounts for the difference? At least in part, it's that Governor Strickland was hearing mainly from educationists while Senator Obama was speaking primarily to the general public about education. But are they ships in the night? How big will the difference between them turn out to be when the time arrives for legislative compromising?

We note that the Illinois senator is not yet spending much political capital to advance his proposals. He often signals that the versions of those proposals that he could actually get behind are those that teachers (and their unions) could support. He has, of course, been endorsed by both national teacher unions. And both released statements praising his Ohio speech.

Obama is walking a fine line on education, reform-minded but not union-repellent. Earlier this summer, for example, he told the NEA that he supported incentive pay for teachers (and was booed for his pains) but spoke out against private school vouchers (and was applauded). While union members aren't likely to flock to a Republican candidate, Obama needs them to flock to the polls if he is to win Ohio and the presidential election. So he knows what lines not to cross.

Strickland, so far, has remained safely on the unions' side of those lines. In return, they adore him. His first state budget, for example, would have decimated charters-good ones and bad ones alike. Now there is much talk among his advisors and allies about decimating Ohio's standards-based accountability system.

Today it appears that Barack Obama and Ted Strickland are on opposite sides of the education policy schism that is gradually widening within the Democratic Party, a schism relating to the role of schools, the role of teachers and their unions, the role of choice, the role of Washington, the role of standards, the role of technology, and much more. Yet both are astute politicians and both have their eye on Ohio voters in November. Will they still be on opposite sides tomorrow?

Senators McCain and Obama might momentarily suspend their energy-policy and economic-policy bickering and pay a visit to Michigan Technical Academy, where students have converted used cooking oil from a nearby tortilla factory into biodiesel. The school's automotive technology teacher, Marty Depowski, is a master certified automotive technician who once worked for Ford. Now, he teaches students how to use their technical savvy to solve technical problems. For instance, pupils are currently devising a way to keep the biodiesel warm; two of the district's buses run on the stuff, and when the Michigan winter sets in and the temperature drops, the fuel will congeal. But nobody seems to be worried. The school's superintendent, Jeremy Gilliam, said, "We have a lot of students good at solving puzzles, diagnosing problems, coming up with creative solutions, working with their hands, and taking things apart to find out how to make them work better."  And if they can't figure out how to keep the biodiesel fuel warm? Well, walking is good for the environment, too.

"Students' energy drives buses," by Karen Bouffard, Detroit News, September 15, 2008

P.S. 8 in Brooklyn Heights, a school with some of the highest test scores in the city, is considered the bee's knees in that part of Gotham; it is so popular, in fact, that its leaders recently decided to build a new annex to "accommodate the flood of students wanting to attend." Everyone seems to love the school-everyone, that is, except Joel Klein and the New York City Department of Education. P.S. 8 will receive an F on its school report card this year; Klein explains that the low grade is "based on its failure to move its students forward over the past year at a pace competitive with similar schools and the system as a whole." Klein is right to emphasize student growth over reputation and popularity. But does the city have its metrics right? It seems to Gadfly that slapping an F on a school that appears to be leaps and bounds ahead of others-certainly in the eyes of parents and educators-undermines the credibility of the grading system itself. Could we settle instead on a Gentleman's C, everyone?

"In Brooklyn, Low Grade for a School of Successes," by Elisa Gootman, New York Times, September 12, 2008

"At P.S. 8, Image Didn't Match Performance," by Jim Dwyer, New York Times, September 13, 2008

How refreshing to watch Wall Street reintroduced to "market discipline" this weekend, and how depressing to see "moral hazard" return by Tuesday night. The government's refusal to rescue Lehman Brothers seemed to indicate that financiers would have to face the consequences of their own risky actions. But then AIG was deemed "too big to fail."

Predictably, some education analysts are already pointing to the market meltdown as a cautionary tale about deregulation and "privatization." I don't know enough about high finance to say whether the 1990s-era policies and practices that lowered traditional barriers between bankers and other investors led to this malaise. But surely there's a better lesson in this mess for schools than just the "regulation is good" story line that certain interests want to peddle.

In the education sector, too, there's a history of bailing out organizations deemed "too big to fail." That's why states have come to the rescue of huge urban districts, long after they have demonstrated an utter inability to get results or balance their books. It's only the small fry--tiny, public charter schools--that ever actually go under. As well they should, if they aren't getting the job done for kids or aren't spending public funds prudently.

The Detroit Public Schools is the AIG of education. It's big, it's bad, and it's broken. And while its ship sinks, board members and superintendent squabble over "rudeness." Is there any reason to believe that current governance arrangements, political dynamics, and leadership are conducive to the systemic transformation needed to save Motown's children from a life of despair?

What's needed is a fresh start, a do-over, a clean slate for Detroit. Simply put, the state should declare Detroit Public Schools bankrupt. (Just today it declared its intent to oversee its finances.) The Michigan legislature took over in 1999 but returned the city to an elected school board in 2005 without making fundamental changes; now's their chance to get it right.

Michigan should take the system into receivership and void or renegotiate all of its contracts (including its collective-bargaining agreements with teachers and sundry other unions). It should slice through any red tape that would keep Detroit from creating a world-class system, including Michigan's cap on new charter schools and its burdensome teacher-certification requirements, not to mention its low academic standards. It should recruit a fearless leader to build, from the bottom-up, a strong curriculum, a culture of excellence, back-office and human resource routines that work--all the elements of a functioning organization. Such an organization would give the public the transparency around spending, processes, and results that has been so lacking on Wall Street lately, and lacking in most big-city school systems forever.

Instead, lawmakers will likely infuse DPS with yet more cash in order to (once again) bring the district out of insolvency. And they will try to "protect" the system by keeping additional charter-school competitors out. (Clearly, Governor Jennifer Granholm's interest in making Michigan more "competitive" doesn't extend to its public schools.)

Americans are understandably growing impatient with government bailouts of Wall Street. When will we become just as frustrated with government bailouts of dysfunctional public-school systems?

This article first appeared on National Review Online.

Beantown is experiencing a talent migration. As go Pedro and Damon, so go the educational leaders? Plagued by charter school caps and a "broader environment" that is "at best tepid, and frequently hostile," founders of Roxbury Preparatory Charter School, Academy of the Pacific Rim, and Boston Collegiate-to name a few-have fled the Bay State's lukewarm embrace for the open arms of the Big Apple. Last year, fewer than 2.5 percent of Massachusetts students were enrolled in charter schools-ranking them nineteenth out of the forty states with charter laws. This despite the fact that once upon a time the Bay State was a leading light of the charter movement. The problem comes down to leadership, argues Jim Peyser, former aide to governors and chairman of the state board of education, specifically the leadership of Governor Deval Patrick and Boston Mayor Thomas Merino, who have "consistently opposed any expansion of charter schools." And thus, it seems, are consistently encouraging some of Massachusetts's finest educators to exit for points south.

"Brain Drain," by James A. Peyser, Boston Globe, September 14, 2008

Should policymakers force students with cognitive disabilities to take high-stakes tests? This is one of the core controversies of the No Child Left Behind act, and states are wrestling with it, too. In California, for example, critics are crusading against a state law requiring students with disabilities to pass the high school exit exam if they wish to receive a diploma. Opponents claim that those who fail suffer "horrific" psychological damage, so they should be granted a diploma sans testing. Balderdash. California already has a policy of granting "certificates" to students (including those with disabilities) who can't pass the test. That's a reasonable compromise. We have no problem if a child's Individual Education Plan exempts her from the state assessment and opts for the "certificate track" instead. But awarding diplomas to students who have not passed the exit exam will turn this symbol of high school completion into more pollywoppus. That's the last thing our schools need.

"Testing of special-ed students should be re-examined," by George Skelton, Los Angeles Times, September 15, 2008

What do safe sex, reading, and proper admonition of Mexican free-tailed bats have in common? They're just a few of the topics people think schools should teach. The latter, free-tailed bats (so named because a bit of their tails project beyond their uropatagia, of course), have taken up residence in some Salt Lake City schools that lie along the mammals' migratory route. Usually content to nest nocturnally in school attics, the immigrants occasionally "pop out of school vents, hang from wall fixtures outside the school, perch on the ceilings, or fly across the school's fourth-floor halls." Alas, an inquisitive lad captured one of the insectivores to impress his buddies; mom didn't take kindly to it. She's filed a lawsuit, alleging that the school "failed to warn her son of potential dangers from the animals, including rabies." Bat blather! says the Utah Attorney General's office-the state is not responsible for adolescent tomfoolery. True. But the biology unit on mammals should really come alive this year (large bat colonies eat 30,000 pounds of insects each night-a factoid more disturbing Gadfly cannot even imagine!).

"Stopover for bats on their way to Mexico," by Ben Fulton, The Salt Lake Tribune, September 15, 2008

The Reason Foundation 
2008

This report evaluates the recent rise of privatization efforts in various sectors; on the education front, it chronicles the expansion of school choice in its various forms. The news is good: more voucher programs, public charter schools, tax credits, special needs scholarships, and incidents of weighted student funding have furthered the cause of deregulation in significant ways. For example, student participation in publicly-funded private school choice, including voucher programs and tax credits, has increased 84 percent over the last five years. On the public front, there were 1.2 million students being served by 4,100 charter schools during 2007-8. Not surprisingly, charters have the largest market share of students in New Orleans, clocking in at 57 percent of schools. Southfield, Minnesota; Dayton, Ohio; and Washington, D.C. tied for second place with 27 percent of their students enrolled in charters. Funding schemes are seeing deregulation, too. In Baltimore, school chief Andres Alonso has started experimenting with new weighted funding formulas; Alonso will give principals more autonomy over hiring and firing, as well as cut over three hundred jobs and close a $50 million shortfall. All this and more can be found in this expansive study.

The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation 
September 2008

This report surveys college-educated Americans (aged 24 to 60) on their views of teaching as a second career. It presumes two things: 1) that we'll need two million teachers over the next decade to replace retiring baby boomers and fill behind the turnover of novice teachers (a presumption because no citation is provided), and 2) that we'll continue to staff schools as we always have (for instance, no distance learning). These assumptions aside, the report finds that 42 percent of the college-educated sample would consider becoming teachers. Among these, 44 percent say poor pay is the key reason preventing them from making the switch. What salary level might entice them to the whiteboard? Roughly 44 percent of the "serious deliberators" (the ones who'd be willing to try teaching now or in the next 2 years) say they'd want a yearly minimum of $50,000 or more. While some affluent districts already come close to that mark for new teachers, the average beginning salary for teachers in 2004-2005 was $31,753. But don't despair; we know there are smart ways to close this gap, including giving mid-career professionals credit for their previous experience by starting them several rungs up the salary scale. Or better yet: frontloading the compensation system by boosting starting salaries while trimming excessive retirement benefits. Find additional data in the report on where potential teachers would like to teach and who they'd like to be their pupils. It's right here.