The Education Gadfly Weekly

Taking its cue from Obama’s campaign platform, the current administration has adamantly supported sizable boosts in “Zero to Five” programs meant to improve the school readiness of low-income children. But how effective are these programs, beginning with the iconic Head Start? This major study, commissioned by the Health and Human Services Department (and released 10 months late), raises serious doubts. It looked at a representative sample of 5,000 3- and 4-year-old Head Start applicants and randomly assigned each to one of two groups--those that were accepted (controlling for those who didn’t enroll) and those that qualified but were not (but were allowed to participate in other non-Head Start early childhood or day care programs). Analysts then investigated outcomes for each cohort across four key domains: cognitive development, social-emotional development, health status and services, and parenting practices. The results revealed that, while enrollment in Head Start had an immediate positive impact on student outcomes, these advantages largely vanished by the end of first grade. In fact, in only one measure of cognitive development did the 3- and 4-year-old Head Start cohorts show significantly better results at that point (out of 19 and 22 total measures, respectively). Will this study--just the latest one over forty-five years to find that Head Start benefits fade away--finally reroute the universal preschool juggernaut? We’re not optimistic. You can read it here.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
January 2010

This is the Education Department’s series finale on NCLB implementation. Utilizing data from two separate studies, it supplies broad descriptions of NCLB accountability efforts. At first blush, it highlights a lot of things we already knew. For example, states with lower standards don’t have to work as hard to get students up to the proficient level, while schools with more minority and low-income students tend to make adequate yearly progress less frequently. However, neatly tucked on page 139, the authors casually add in a sentence actually worth noting. While time-in-learning for reading and math increased during study years, “the time devoted to other subjects was virtually unchanged.” If true, this would throw a monkey wrench into the standard NCLB criticism that the legislation has unduly narrowed curriculum and open up the debate for more systemic issues with NCLB accountability. But other federal data, such as the Schools and Staffing Survey, have found the exact opposite, in elementary school at least. (See here, here, and here, too.) In the very least, this report won’t make us less vigilant about curriculum narrowing. You can download the report here.

James Taylor, Brian Stecher, Jennifer O’Day, Scott Naftel, Kerstin Carlson le Floch
RAND and American Institutes for Research
U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development
January 2010

In these lively and readable case studies, the author spells out--with the appropriate degree of detail--the changes that five urban school districts (Long Beach and Garden Grove, CA, Norfolk and Boston, MA, and Aldine, TX) made on the path to winning the Broad Prize. Several themes weave throughout: These districts implemented a clear, direct, and rigorous curriculum, aligned with high standards and supported at various layers throughout the system. Indeed, revamping the district’s curriculum was the single most important contributor to success. But that’s not all. They were also staffed with highly-capable leaders and teachers. Though superintendent turnover is rife in urban education, the leaders of these districts lasted 6 to 11 years. Data and multiple accountability systems were also critical. The author is clear in linking such reforms to NCLB and to district leaders’ enthusiasm for the law’s provisions. Despite allegations that it’s a “tainted brand,” it’s worth highlighting these examples of this statute working as intended. Buy it here.

 Bringing School Reform to Scale: Five Award-Winning Urban Districts

Heather Zavadsky
Harvard Education Press
2009

Aside from ex-governor Jon Corzine, no one lost bigger in November’s Garden State gubernatorial election than the New Jersey Education Association. That, at least, is the sense in Trenton, where newly-elected Governor Chris Christie has declared war with the teachers’ union. Besides appointing former Jersey City Mayor (and veteran voucher booster) Bret Schundler to run the state’s education department, the Governor and his allies have so far engaged mostly in a verbal sparring match. NJEA’s thinking is “back in the 19th century,” says Christie, while the head of the Black Ministers’ Council, Reverend Reginald Jackson, likened the union to Rip Van Winkle. NJEA Prez Barbara Keshishian still hopes to establish a “working relationship” with the new guv. But voters “didn’t pick me because they were looking for a subtle approach,” declares Christie. “So, here it comes.” Despite all this smack-talking, NJEA is still a force to be reckoned with. It has dollars, manpower, and pet elected officials aplenty upon which to call as Christie takes his charter school-voucher-teacher evaluation agenda to the mat. And the union’s refusal to back the Garden State’s Race to the Top application, announced the same day as Schundler’s appointment, cannot help Jersey’s chances. But notwithstanding the NJEA’s $3 million effort to defeat him, Christie rode a positive wave into Trenton, and that’s sure to count for something. Here's hoping that this brawl doesn’t end up as part of a reality series plot line.

"Gov.-elect Christie targets teachers' union with Schundler appointment," by Tom Moran, The Star-Ledger, January 13, 2010

The Chariots of Fire theme song echoed across the plains on Tuesday as states submitted their Race to the Top applications. But not everyone is drawn to the bait of federal dollars when it contains reform hooks. Several states have opted out all together, at least in round one. Texas Governor Rick Perry barred the Lone Star State from participating, saying the competition was a violation of states’ rights. Other states applied despite obstinate interest groups. Teachers’ union affiliates in many places (like New Jersey) opposed their state’s applications while many districts preemptively declined to take proffered funds if their host states win. In its scoring system, however, RTT counts buy-in from the various affected parties, but it remains to be seen how states with otherwise-strong applications but recalcitrant unions or districts will fare in the competition. The opposition is largely ideological, though some states like Montana worry that Secretary Duncan’s push towards charter schools is inappropriate for their rural demographics. Still, with 40 states plus the District of Columbia willing to jump through RTT’s hoops, Nevada’s schools superintendent is probably right when he told the Times, “When you’re starving and somebody puts food in your mouth, it’s amazing what states will do.”

"Education Grant Effort Faces Late Opposition," by Sam Dillon, New York Times,January 18, 2010

Should computer algorithms determine our national English curriculum? That’s what E.D. Hirsch wants to know when he raises this shockingly relevant--if absurd--question in his evaluation of the draft “Common Core” college-ready standards. The standards, in his view, have several pluses. They explicitly associate literacy with having a broad base of knowledge, and they correctly divide the amorphous “language arts” into its core skills of reading, writing, listening, and speaking. But reminiscent of our own evaluation of the same standards, Hirsch cautions that schools can’t teach these skills directly without a knowledge-rich curriculum. The primary error, explains Hirsch, is that the standards-drafters treat language proficiency as a how-to skill. Similar to many state ELA standards, they use a technical definition that is based on finding the main idea and “inferencing.” In reality, inference cannot be taught in the abstract. Studies have shown that a poor reader with extensive baseball knowledge will score higher on a passage about baseball than a good reader with little knowledge of the sport. Thus, to impart the necessary language competencies, we must focus on increasing a student’s knowledge of content, not attempt to teach them “reading skills” as such. This is an important distinction that the standards fail to point out.

“First, do no harm,” E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Education Week, January 14, 2010 (subscription required)

While the devastating effects of Haiti’s January 12 earthquake remain agonizing, there has been an upwelling of compassion and generosity across America, albeit with a couple of odd twists. Donations through text messages are an incredibly popular route, with contributions currently topping $27 million. Clinton and Bush 43 have teamed up to create the Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund for emergency and long-term relief. And New York City Chancellor Joel Klein has temporarily suspended the city-wide ban on bake sales. In an attempt to curb obesity in city schools, NYC DOE placed a number of restrictions on where, when, and how student clubs and parent associations can raise money during school hours and on school property. For the moment, however, Big Apple students are now free to buy their cake, and eat it, too, so long as the proceeds go to Haitian relief efforts. One notes that the trans-fats, processed sugar, and refined carbs they will consume as a result, even if bad for their waistlines, is in the interest of a most worthy cause.

“School Bake Sales are Back On, But Only for Haiti,” by Jennifer Medina, New York Times, January 15, 2010

The vice principal at a San Diego tech-themed magnet middle school must not have been very hip, rad, phat, or da bomb diggity in the 90s. The slang-challenged fellow recently confused a student’s science project that was da bomb for being…a bomb. An 11-year-old brought the home-made device, intended as a motion detector, to school to share with friends--and wound up with quite a commotion on his hands. In fact, it took a school-wide evacuation, x-rays, and a bomb sniffing robot for the school to determine that the child’s project was harmless. After searching the boy’s home for further threatening-looking paraphernalia, school officials let the boy go home. But don’t worry, they say, for they won’t be prosecuting him. We’d have liked to see that legal argument. Prosecuting for what? His interest in science? His self-directed initiative to work on a science project on his own time at home?

“California Middle School Evacuated After Science Project Mistaken for Bomb,” Associated Press, January 18, 2010

“Science project prompts SD school evacuation,” by Susan Shroder, San Diego Union-Tribune, January 15, 2010

Taking its cue from Obama’s campaign platform, the current administration has adamantly supported sizable boosts in “Zero to Five” programs meant to improve the school readiness of low-income children. But how effective are these programs, beginning with the iconic Head Start? This major study, commissioned by the Health and Human Services Department (and released 10 months late), raises serious doubts. It looked at a representative sample of 5,000 3- and 4-year-old Head Start applicants and randomly assigned each to one of two groups--those that were accepted (controlling for those who didn’t enroll) and those that qualified but were not (but were allowed to participate in other non-Head Start early childhood or day care programs). Analysts then investigated outcomes for each cohort across four key domains: cognitive development, social-emotional development, health status and services, and parenting practices. The results revealed that, while enrollment in Head Start had an immediate positive impact on student outcomes, these advantages largely vanished by the end of first grade. In fact, in only one measure of cognitive development did the 3- and 4-year-old Head Start cohorts show significantly better results at that point (out of 19 and 22 total measures, respectively). Will this study--just the latest one over forty-five years to find that Head Start benefits fade away--finally reroute the universal preschool juggernaut? We’re not optimistic. You can read it here.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
January 2010

This is the Education Department’s series finale on NCLB implementation. Utilizing data from two separate studies, it supplies broad descriptions of NCLB accountability efforts. At first blush, it highlights a lot of things we already knew. For example, states with lower standards don’t have to work as hard to get students up to the proficient level, while schools with more minority and low-income students tend to make adequate yearly progress less frequently. However, neatly tucked on page 139, the authors casually add in a sentence actually worth noting. While time-in-learning for reading and math increased during study years, “the time devoted to other subjects was virtually unchanged.” If true, this would throw a monkey wrench into the standard NCLB criticism that the legislation has unduly narrowed curriculum and open up the debate for more systemic issues with NCLB accountability. But other federal data, such as the Schools and Staffing Survey, have found the exact opposite, in elementary school at least. (See here, here, and here, too.) In the very least, this report won’t make us less vigilant about curriculum narrowing. You can download the report here.

James Taylor, Brian Stecher, Jennifer O’Day, Scott Naftel, Kerstin Carlson le Floch
RAND and American Institutes for Research
U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development
January 2010

In these lively and readable case studies, the author spells out--with the appropriate degree of detail--the changes that five urban school districts (Long Beach and Garden Grove, CA, Norfolk and Boston, MA, and Aldine, TX) made on the path to winning the Broad Prize. Several themes weave throughout: These districts implemented a clear, direct, and rigorous curriculum, aligned with high standards and supported at various layers throughout the system. Indeed, revamping the district’s curriculum was the single most important contributor to success. But that’s not all. They were also staffed with highly-capable leaders and teachers. Though superintendent turnover is rife in urban education, the leaders of these districts lasted 6 to 11 years. Data and multiple accountability systems were also critical. The author is clear in linking such reforms to NCLB and to district leaders’ enthusiasm for the law’s provisions. Despite allegations that it’s a “tainted brand,” it’s worth highlighting these examples of this statute working as intended. Buy it here.

 Bringing School Reform to Scale: Five Award-Winning Urban Districts

Heather Zavadsky
Harvard Education Press
2009