The Education Gadfly Weekly

Executive Office of the President, Council of Economic Advisers
July 2009

This report from President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers finds education and economics to be deeply entwined. The council believes America should prepare its workforce for the future, for example in promoting the development of critical-thinking abilities over specific technical skills. But the path to gaining these skills does not lie solely in the direction of what we now know as "21st Century" skill-based standards and their ilk. Rather, the report recommends that high-quality, primary and secondary education must focus on strong basic skills, quality instruction, high standards, rigorous assessments, and strong accountability. The report also expects the education sector to contribute to substantial job growth with more jobs in teaching and administration. A Fordham Institute study released in June supports this. That study found that many science and math majors in Ohio's top universities would consider jobs in education (see here).

Though the council's report devotes the majority of its pages to post-high school training, the bottom line is that our economic crisis should be addressed from the bottom up -- and the bottom starts young. It's an important reminder from a new administration that strong standards, teacher quality, and accountability reform are not only beneficial to the individual student, but to the nation as a whole. Read the report here. 

Celeste K. Carruthers, Urban Institute & National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research
June 2009

Do charter schools siphon good teachers from mainstream public schools, or is it an unfounded accusation that we've all just grown used to hearing? This working paper by Celeste Carruthers, an economics graduate student at the University of Florida, examines data on North Carolina public school teachers (from 1997-2007) who transferred either to charter schools or to other mainstream public schools, to determine how the two teacher pools might differ. Amidst a broken record of charges against charters for "cream skimming" funds and talent from mainstream public schools, this paper prefers empirical evidence over rhetoric.

Unfortunately, like many statistical analyses comparing teacher qualifications and effectiveness, the data are mixed. On average, teachers who moved to charters were less experienced and less likely to be certified than other mobile teachers-a fact that lines up with the anecdotal evidence that young, often non-traditional educators staff many charter schools. Yet charter movers were also more likely to have at least 25 years of experience, so senior teachers were motivated to join charters, albeit probably for different reasons than younger teachers. Among certified, regularly licensed teachers, those moving to charters typically had higher licensure test scores than their colleagues moving to mainstream schools. Licensed charter movers even had higher test scores than non-mobile colleagues in mainstream schools.

The paper goes on to analyze the achievement of sub-groups of students, and determines that the effectiveness of teachers who moved to a charter school (as compared to those moving to mainstream schools) was 4.5 percent of a standard deviation higher in math, and 4 percent higher in reading. Despite this statistic, it is difficult to conclude unequivocally that mainstream schools really lose talent to charters. Teachers who decide to transfer schools may be fundamentally different from non-mobile teachers in several ways, and the latter group may deliver better student test results. Tracking the on-paper qualifications of teachers (such as certification status and licensure scores) in charter and mainstream schools can tell us what type of teacher teaches where, but questions of quality still remain unanswered.  

Overall, Carruthers injects much-needed empirical evidence into debates about charter schools, the efficacy of certification/licensure, and the impact of teaching experience on student achievement. It also serves as useful fodder to counter the rhetoric-driven arguments made by Ohio's politicians and teacher unions that teacher certification and experience are necessary to improve student learning, or that charters are a wasteful diversion of funds and talent. See the full report here.

President Obama put the graduation-rate debate front and center in March, when he noted that the nation's high-school dropout rate had tripled since the 1970s (see here). The media and education community scrambled to react to the president's claim. Some pointed to data showing that graduation rates had remained steady over the past 30 years while others claimed that rates have actually improved. Depending on how you calculate graduation rates, they are all correct.

This variance has been at the crux of the grad-rate debate for the past decade. In 2005, all 50 state governors agreed to move toward a National Governors Association-recommended method for calculating graduation rates. Today, 42 states are either using the method or are rapidly moving to implement it.

Then, in late 2008, the Bush administration issued regulations putting in place a common graduation-rate measure for all states to be used for accountability purposes under Title I by 2011-2012. The Obama administration expressed its support of this common measure earlier this year.

Beginning in 2010, states will use a four-year adjusted cohort rate that is calculated by dividing the number of students who graduate by the number of students who form that class's "adjusted cohort" (an adjusted cohort is the number of students who entered ninth grade four years prior, plus any students who transferred in, minus any students who were removed from the cohort). Students who are held back from advancing a grade level because they aren't academically prepared or who enroll in a GED program remain in the cohort and so count against the graduation rate. Students who leave school for any reason other than transferring to another state-approved school (or out of the state or country) remain in the cohort and count against the graduation rate.

Though the question of how graduation rates will be calculated has been answered, a new grad-rate debate looms. The foremost questions are 1) will the U.S. Department of Education actually enforce the new regulations, and 2) how far will it go to intervene when states and schools fail to make sure more students graduate? At least two major questions emerge for Ohio's state and local education leaders:

• Will instituting a common measure for calculating graduation rates, while still allowing states to define graduation requirements, lead to Ohio "gaming" the system by accepting low standards? This is what happened when the feds mandated that all students be "proficient" by 2014 but let states define proficiency (see here). Graduation requirements already vary widely. For example, Wyoming mandates 13 credits to graduate, Ohio calls for 20, while Washington requires 24. Will Ohio shy away from implementing the rigorous college- and career-readiness standards established in the Ohio Core legislation (see here) because of the negative impact the standards might have on the state's four-year high-school completion rates? Will social promotion become more prevalent in the Buckeye State's high schools?
• Will school choice be discouraged? The feds' common measure requires tracking student-level enrollment and official documentation to confirm that a student has transferred to another school, immigrated to another country, or is dead. Ohio has an excellent education-data system (see here), and the ability to track student enrollment among the state's schools. However, Ohio high-school students also have significant education options. In addition to more than 700 district high schools and 68 vocational schools, the state has 168 charter high schools, 170 private high schools (including 98 that participate in the state's voucher program), and several new, independent STEM schools coming online. Also, more than 450 Ohio school districts have some form of open-enrollment policy, and students can utilize post-secondary enrollment options to take college classes during high school. As it becomes more important to accurately track high-school enrollment, will districts - who see their funding shrink as students leave for other options -- discourage students from exercising school choice? Will state leaders (who've been no fans of school choice, see here) curtail charter and voucher programs further in order to make graduation-rate data collection easier and to boost their own rates?

While the debate of the last decade around how to calculate graduation rates has quieted some, there is little doubt that a new debate is about to rage.

For more information on the various graduation-rate calculation methods, an explanation of the controversy that surrounds them, and insight into the "next frontier" of the grad-rate debate, check out Fordham's latest report, The Great Graduation-Rate Debate, by Christine O. Wolfe here.

In June 2009, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS) released A New Model Law For Supporting The Growth of High-Quality Public Charter Schools. The model charter law does what a good "model" document should: strike the balance between articulating a basic set of principles or guidelines (a "floor," so to speak) while remaining flexible enough to be applicable and relevant across multiple states. Indeed, the authors state that their intent was to provide the tools to strengthen existing charter school laws (40 states and the District of Columbia) and set forth a foundation for new charter school laws in jurisdictions that don't currently have them (10 states).

The model law covers student enrollment; authorizers (known in Ohio as "sponsors"); the charter application process; accountability; operations and autonomy; and funding and facilities. An important area not covered is conflict of interest. Additionally, one aspect of the model law that seems too prescriptive is a provision giving enrollment preference, limited to 10 percent of students, to children of the school's founders, governing board members, and full-time employees. Although well-intended (the rationale is that these individuals devote much time and effort to the school), a charter school is a public school and should be open to all students equally.

Ohio policymakers should take note of the following components of the model law when considering improvements to the state's charter policies:

1. All charters - even those affiliated with school districts - should have an independent governing board (so that there are two formal parties to a charter contract which, presumably, would set forth clear accountability standards for the particular charter school).
2. Authorizer funding should be periodically reviewed to determine whether the funding to authorizers is adequate. Fordham would further suggest that authorizer fees not be paid by schools themselves but rather paid directly from the state. There is an inherent conflict of interest when authorizers are tasked with holding schools accountable yet depend on those same schools for funding.

The model law is an important read for all legislators, policymakers, and interested parties who care about charter school quality. The report can be found here.

Celeste K. Carruthers, Urban Institute & National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research
June 2009

Do charter schools siphon good teachers from mainstream public schools, or is it an unfounded accusation that we've all just grown used to hearing? This working paper by Celeste Carruthers, an economics graduate student at the University of Florida, examines data on North Carolina public school teachers (from 1997-2007) who transferred either to charter schools or to other mainstream public schools, to determine how the two teacher pools might differ. Amidst a broken record of charges against charters for "cream skimming" funds and talent from mainstream public schools, this paper prefers empirical evidence over rhetoric.

Unfortunately, like many statistical analyses comparing teacher qualifications and effectiveness, the data are mixed. On average, teachers who moved to charters were less experienced and less likely to be certified than other mobile teachers-a fact that lines up with the anecdotal evidence that young, often non-traditional educators staff many charter schools. Yet charter movers were also more likely to have at least 25 years of experience, so senior teachers were motivated to join charters, albeit probably for different reasons than younger teachers. Among certified, regularly licensed teachers, those moving to charters typically had higher licensure test scores than their colleagues moving to mainstream schools. Licensed charter movers even had higher test scores than non-mobile colleagues in mainstream schools.

The paper goes on to analyze the achievement of sub-groups of students, and determines that the effectiveness of teachers who moved to a charter school (as compared to those moving to mainstream schools) was 4.5 percent of a standard deviation higher in math, and 4 percent higher in reading. Despite this statistic, it is difficult to conclude unequivocally that mainstream schools really lose talent to charters. Teachers who decide to transfer schools may be fundamentally different from non-mobile teachers in several ways, and the latter group may deliver better student test results. Tracking the on-paper qualifications of teachers (such as certification status and licensure scores) in charter and mainstream schools can tell us what type of teacher teaches where, but questions of quality still remain unanswered.  

Overall, Carruthers injects much-needed empirical evidence into debates about charter schools, the efficacy of certification/licensure, and the impact of teaching experience on student achievement. It also serves as useful fodder to counter the rhetoric-driven arguments made by Ohio's politicians and teacher unions that teacher certification and experience are necessary to improve student learning, or that charters are a wasteful diversion of funds and talent. See the full report here.

Executive Office of the President, Council of Economic Advisers
July 2009

This report from President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers finds education and economics to be deeply entwined. The council believes America should prepare its workforce for the future, for example in promoting the development of critical-thinking abilities over specific technical skills. But the path to gaining these skills does not lie solely in the direction of what we now know as "21st Century" skill-based standards and their ilk. Rather, the report recommends that high-quality, primary and secondary education must focus on strong basic skills, quality instruction, high standards, rigorous assessments, and strong accountability. The report also expects the education sector to contribute to substantial job growth with more jobs in teaching and administration. A Fordham Institute study released in June supports this. That study found that many science and math majors in Ohio's top universities would consider jobs in education (see here).

Though the council's report devotes the majority of its pages to post-high school training, the bottom line is that our economic crisis should be addressed from the bottom up -- and the bottom starts young. It's an important reminder from a new administration that strong standards, teacher quality, and accountability reform are not only beneficial to the individual student, but to the nation as a whole. Read the report here.