The Education Gadfly Weekly

Gary W. Phillips
American Institutes for Research
April 24, 2007

Earlier this week, the American Institutes for Research released an important paper by chief scientist Gary Phillips, who for many years headed the NCES unit that administers NAEP and who knows that assessment system as well as anyone. In essence, he links NAEP's scoring scale to that of the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) so that he can project NAEP's three well-known "achievement levels" (basic, proficient, advanced) onto the TIMSS scale and show how kids in other countries do (in math and science only) in relation to NAEP's expectations. A very nice piece of analysis, for starters, and one that undermines the assertion by state officials and some academics that NAEP's "achievement levels" expect too much. When a non-trivial number of other countries, including some of America's toughest economic competitors, already boast far larger fractions of their students at or above NAEP's "proficient" level than the U.S. itself can claim, we'd be foolish to lower our expectations. The next time you hear a state testing director argue that his state's definition of "proficiency" is more akin to NAEP's concept of "basic," understand that you're listening to someone who is content when young Americans are more like Latvians or Indonesians than like Koreans or Belgians. Which is not to say that any country has all of its kids "at or above proficient." Far from it. If, for NCLB purposes, we use NAEP-level "proficient" as the bar that every young American has to clear, we won't succeed. But the fact that the Netherlands is at 41 percent, Belgium at 51 percent, and Taiwan and Japan at 61 percent (all in 8th grade math) while the U.S. lingers around 27 percent means that ordinary kids in serious countries are doing vastly better than ours are and that we're right to keep using that target as the one to shoot for and measure ourselves against. Find the study here and a news report about it here.

Center for Teaching Quality
April 2007

Last year the Center for Teaching Quality convened 18 accomplished educators from around the nation to contribute their insights on teacher pay. The result is this clear and thoughtful outline of some of the most important teacher-pay issues. A major strength of the report, beyond its strong support for dumping the single salary schedule, is its emphasis on local flexibility. Unlike some recent "blue-ribbon" panels (see here and here), this group of teachers recognizes that "Teacher incentives must be meaningful in the context of the communities where they are offered." This means that certain districts, or even individual schools, might provide different incentives to attract different kinds of teachers according to their needs; in short, it is, as they say, a "market-driven model." Also valuable are their insights on professional development. Under the single-salary schedule, teachers are often rewarded for attending workshops or getting advanced degrees that have little relevance to their classroom teaching. This report calls for rewarding teachers who acquire knowledge and skills that "meet the specific, identified needs of the students they currently serve" and the "strategic goals of local schools." To identify such needs, schools and districts might consider "demographic trends, skills likely to be valued in the marketplace, and community aspirations." But, once again, the report emphasizes that the ultimate responsibility for ironing out the details of such policies lies at the local level. By taking this reasoned approach, and by soliciting the input of actual teachers, this report offers some hearty food for thought. See background on the group of 18 here and read the report here.

Agnes Hitchcock is a regular at meetings of the Detroit School Board. As head of the Call ‘Em Out Coalition, which is a grassroots something or other, Hitchcock was recently arrested for assault, battery, and disorderly conduct after she allegedly hurled red grapes at school board members because they voted to close 34 school buildings (a laudable move; see here). It remains unclear whether or not the grapes contained seeds. Board Vice President Joyce Hayes-Giles was hit, though not wounded. Hitchcock was released from custody after posting a $100 bond, but she is barred from attending subsequent school board meetings and having direct contact with members. Hitchcock didn't comment on the case, but her attorney, William Hackett, told reporters his client was being unfairly singled out. "It's my understanding," he said, "that my client wasn't the only person who had grapes." Rumors of raisins abound.

"Grape thrower called a 'social terrorist'," by Lori Higgins, Detroit Free Press, April 6, 2007

"34 Detroit schools to close," by Chastity Pratt, Peggy Walsh-Sarnecki, and Lori Higgins, Detroit Free Press, April 5, 2007

There was Ahnold, on the cover of the April 16th Newsweek, expertly balancing a photo-shopped globe on his right index finger, a knowing smile on his face. And why wouldn't he smile? In climate change, Schwarzenegger has found an issue that he can attack with impunity, and one that will garner him significant praise from all corners.

And Schwarzenegger is ubiquitous these days, always plugging his new muscular environmentalism. There he is on Letterman, there he is with Tony Blair, there he is on MTV's show Pimp My Ride (a special Earth Day episode), lovingly inspecting a '65 Chevy Impala that runs on bio-diesel. Why Pimp My Ride? "To show people that biofuel is not like some wimpy feminine car, like a hybrid," said the governor.

It's too bad, though, that Schwarzenegger seems unwilling to put his macho fervor to work in policy areas that might actually need it. Anyone paying attention to California's schools knows that public education would be a great place to start. Sure, he's promised to make 2008 the "year of education." But California's governor hasn't been setting the stage for it. Schwarzenegger was once forceful and open about his quest to remake the state's schools; he's been conspicuously quiet as of late.

Some of that silence no doubt stems from Schwarzenegger's losses in November 2005, when he invested time, effort, and several millions of his own dollars on ballot proposals that were ultimately defeated. Among the losing proposals was one that would have lengthened the time required before public school teachers could achieve tenure and one that would have allowed union members to stop their dues from flowing to union-backed political campaigns.

Then came the governor's 2006 reelection bid. In order to salve angry teacher unions, Schwarzenegger promised to repay billions of dollars he had formerly cut from the state's education budget (see here). Months later, at the debate between California's gubernatorial candidates, Schwarzenegger offered an uncharacteristically bland prescription for fixing schools. The first thing he said about education was, "It is very important that we pay attention to fund education fully." It was Democratic candidate Phil Angelides, not the governor, who during the debate called for expanding charter schools.

But Schwarzenegger won big. And now he needs to tackle the issues hindering California's K-12 system.

Where to start? Charter schools would be a good place, especially because they're coming under attack in the Golden State (as in much of the rest of the country). One of the best things to happen to Los Angeles' poor and minority students is Green Dot, a (unionized) network of charter schools that operates in some of L.A.'s roughest areas and endeavors to provide a solid education for neighborhood kids. But when Green Dot recently tried to expand and open eight new high schools in and around Watts, the L.A. school board wouldn't allow it (see here).

What was the governor's response to this attack on L.A.'s neediest kids? Nichts. At least the Los Angeles Times wasn't so shy--it called the school board's decision "unconscionable" and wrote that the board "places politics, union priorities and personal payback over students time and again." Under such pressure, one school board member up for election reversed his vote, giving a victory to Green Dot.

It's easy to say that the governor shouldn't involve himself in municipal issues (although he did when L.A.'s mayor tried to take over the city's schools). Or that Schwarzenegger tacitly supports charters and choice. Or that he's appointed good people to the state's board of education.

And for most state governors, perhaps that would be enough. But Schwarzenegger should be held to a higher standard. Not only does he run the world's sixth-largest economy, but he's one of the most-recognizable elected officials in the world. California's schools are in disarray, and Schwarzenegger should make fixing them his priority--now. Devoting five words to charter schools in his 2007 State of the State address doesn't cut it.

Lots of Ahnold's more "progressive" friends won't like to see him push loudly and forcibly (which doesn't mean imprudently) for more charter schools and educational choice, and for tougher accountability for students and schools. But if the governor wants to leave a real legacy for California, he has to start with educating the state's future.

According to the Indianapolis Public School system, 94 percent of its students are in class each day. Sounds pretty good, right? But a four-part report this week by the Indianapolis Star, while not exactly disputing that number, tells a very different story. The paper launched an investigation into truancy, defined by the editors as a student having 10 or more unexcused absences, and found that eight of IPS's high schools have a combined truancy rate of 37 percent. In other words, almost 4 in ten students miss at least two weeks of school a year. And at 26 of the district's 51 elementary schools, as many as 18 percent of students are chronically absent. The story is similar in Marion County (reported attendance rate, 90 percent), where in one township a third of students qualify as chronic absentees. One researcher calls truancy "the middle chapter of the dropout story." Students "don't say one morning, 'I'm dropping out.'" IPS may need to implement strict fines, or even press tough criminal charges, against parents whose students don't show up for class. One thing's for sure--it's hard to help all students achieve proficiency in reading and math when kids aren't even in class.

"Too many empty seats in classroom," "A battle with absentees," "From absentees to dropouts," and "Many cases, many causes," Indianapolis Star, April 22-25, 2007

The Gates and Broad Foundations are pumping $60 million into a campaign called "Strong American Schools," designed to boost consciousness and foster debate about three big education reform ideas during the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, and more fundamentally, make sure that candidates don't ignore the issue (see here). Led by ex-Colorado governor, ex-Democratic National Committee chairman,  and ex-Los Angeles superintendent Roy Romer, this well-intended venture risks becoming a source of debate only on the Democratic side of the election cycle. Assiduously steering clear of any support for any form of school choice, even charter schools, two of its three ideas (national standards, longer school days and years) are more apt to interest D's than R's. Indeed, many R's (wrongly, in Gadfly's view) run screaming from any mention of national standards. As for the third focus, boosting teacher quality via--among other things--merit pay, Republicans are apt to applaud while many Democrats will look over their shoulders to see what the unions are signaling. All three S.A.S. ideas have merit, but it still looks to Gadfly like a two-to-one advantage for D-type issues. Will Republican candidates engage, sit on their hands, or denounce? Unknowable today. But it's usually a mistake to underestimate Roy Romer.

 "Billionaires Start $60 Million Schools Effort," by David M. Herszenhorn, New York Times, April 25, 2007

Center for Teaching Quality
April 2007

Last year the Center for Teaching Quality convened 18 accomplished educators from around the nation to contribute their insights on teacher pay. The result is this clear and thoughtful outline of some of the most important teacher-pay issues. A major strength of the report, beyond its strong support for dumping the single salary schedule, is its emphasis on local flexibility. Unlike some recent "blue-ribbon" panels (see here and here), this group of teachers recognizes that "Teacher incentives must be meaningful in the context of the communities where they are offered." This means that certain districts, or even individual schools, might provide different incentives to attract different kinds of teachers according to their needs; in short, it is, as they say, a "market-driven model." Also valuable are their insights on professional development. Under the single-salary schedule, teachers are often rewarded for attending workshops or getting advanced degrees that have little relevance to their classroom teaching. This report calls for rewarding teachers who acquire knowledge and skills that "meet the specific, identified needs of the students they currently serve" and the "strategic goals of local schools." To identify such needs, schools and districts might consider "demographic trends, skills likely to be valued in the marketplace, and community aspirations." But, once again, the report emphasizes that the ultimate responsibility for ironing out the details of such policies lies at the local level. By taking this reasoned approach, and by soliciting the input of actual teachers, this report offers some hearty food for thought. See background on the group of 18 here and read the report here.

Gary W. Phillips
American Institutes for Research
April 24, 2007

Earlier this week, the American Institutes for Research released an important paper by chief scientist Gary Phillips, who for many years headed the NCES unit that administers NAEP and who knows that assessment system as well as anyone. In essence, he links NAEP's scoring scale to that of the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) so that he can project NAEP's three well-known "achievement levels" (basic, proficient, advanced) onto the TIMSS scale and show how kids in other countries do (in math and science only) in relation to NAEP's expectations. A very nice piece of analysis, for starters, and one that undermines the assertion by state officials and some academics that NAEP's "achievement levels" expect too much. When a non-trivial number of other countries, including some of America's toughest economic competitors, already boast far larger fractions of their students at or above NAEP's "proficient" level than the U.S. itself can claim, we'd be foolish to lower our expectations. The next time you hear a state testing director argue that his state's definition of "proficiency" is more akin to NAEP's concept of "basic," understand that you're listening to someone who is content when young Americans are more like Latvians or Indonesians than like Koreans or Belgians. Which is not to say that any country has all of its kids "at or above proficient." Far from it. If, for NCLB purposes, we use NAEP-level "proficient" as the bar that every young American has to clear, we won't succeed. But the fact that the Netherlands is at 41 percent, Belgium at 51 percent, and Taiwan and Japan at 61 percent (all in 8th grade math) while the U.S. lingers around 27 percent means that ordinary kids in serious countries are doing vastly better than ours are and that we're right to keep using that target as the one to shoot for and measure ourselves against. Find the study here and a news report about it here.