The Education Gadfly Weekly

In this ambitious compendium, authors pull together school-choice research as it pertains to student outcomes; parent choice; and competition and segregation effects. Through its chapters, the volume does a mighty fine job answering some tough questions relating to school choice: Do charters cream? Do vouchers in D.C. work? What criteria do parents use when choosing a school? Do students availing themselves of choice programs experience greater achievement in their new schools? Researchers of various stripes, including Paul Peterson and John Witte, pull data from Indianapolis to the Netherlands. The bottom line: We’re headed in the right direction—but there’s a lot we could do better. To that end, School Choice and School Improvement calls out some of the hang-ups in the school-choice movement (the underwhelming effects of intradistrict transfer being one and high school application processes that derail some would-be school-choice students being another). It also gives some practical advice (e.g.: how to disseminate school information to parents). This volume offers a balanced, above-the-fray look at look the current realities and future possibilities of choice in our schools.

A joint production of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the American Institutes for Research (AIR), this report compiles data from eleven previous surveys, seven focus groups, and three case studies to gauge how Generation Y teachers—those born between 1977 and 1989—view their profession. Overall, it paints Gen Y teachers as optimistic and progressive, concluding that they crave more feedback on their effectiveness, more peer sharing and learning, recognition and rewards for strong performance, meaningful evaluation systems, and technology in the classrooms. Interestingly for an AFT publication, it paints these young teachers as more reform-minded than they probably are. For example, the study cites the Retaining Teacher Talent survey and reports that near 61 percent of Gen Y teachers think stellar colleagues should be rewarded. But it fails to showcase another finding from the same survey: Sixty-seven percent of Gen Yers would themselves prefer a school with a guaranteed annual raise of 3 percent and no opportunity for merit pay, as opposed to a school with opportunities for merit pay but no set tenure and salary structure. At the end of the day, Gen Y teachers may well be slightly more reformy than their older colleagues, but it would be folly to think that reformers looking to tear down tenure and implement performance-based pay will find droves of allies in the younger generation of classroom practitioners.

Jane D. Coggshall, Ellen Behrstock-Sherratt, and Karen Drill, “Workplaces That Support High-Performing Teaching and Learning: Insights from Generation Y Teachers” (Washington, D.C.: American Federation of Teachers; Naperville, IL: American Institutes for Research, April 2011).

As states and districts seek to overhaul teacher-evaluation systems, this NBER paper answers a salient question: Do evaluations actually improve a teacher’s performance? That’s one hope of reformers and unions alike—that clear and regular feedback will help instructors improve their craft. Based on eight years of data from Cincinnati’s Teacher Evaluation System (TES), the answer is yes—in math, anyway. TES is an evaluation system that uses periodic, unannounced classroom observations coupled with student-work portfolios. For this report, researchers examined data from 2003-04 to 2009-10 to ascertain the impact of TES on mid-career teachers (those in the system for five to nineteen years). Building on performance-evaluation research, these analyses looked not just at any immediate improvements incurred during a teacher’s evaluation period, but at the long-term impacts resulting from participation in TES itself. They do this by comparing achievement of students taught before teacher participation in TES with student achievement during or after TES participation, while also controlling for students’ prior achievement, teacher experience, and relevant demographic variables. Though there were no significant differences found in reading, teacher performance in math improved both during the evaluation period and afterwards. For example, a teacher whose pupils had typically scored in the 50th percentile on math tests before being evaluated begins to see results in the 55th percentile range in the years after evaluation. Teachers who scored in the lowest quartile on their evaluations showed the greatest improvements. As we rethink teacher evaluation, these are promising findings indeed. But be forewarned: A system like TES comes with a lofty price tag—roughly $7,500 for each teacher evaluated (over the course of the six studied years). If districts or states plan on taking it to scale, some financial juggling will be in order.

Eric S. Taylor and John H. Tyler, “The Effect of Evaluation on Performance: Evidence from Longitudinal Student Achievement Data of Mid-career Teachers,” (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2011).

Since the 2000 PISA and TIMSS test results catapulted Finland’s education system to international acclaim, scholars around the globe have been debating the sources of that success. This film, produced by Robert Compton (of Two Million Minutes fame) and starring Tony Wagner (author of The Global Achievement Gap), weighs in on this saturated debate. Through classroom visits, interviews with students and teachers, and statistics that roll across the screen, it showcases Finland’s myriad educational idiosyncrasies. It explains that the country has no high-stakes testing (save at the end of secondary school) or teacher-evaluation system, and students do little homework. This system creates a “culture of trust,” which Wagner heralds as the magic bean of Finland’s success. What is most interesting about the film, though, is its depiction of Finland’s rigorous, intense, and competitive teacher-training programs—a more probable explanation for the nation’s academic strength. These programs accept a mere 10 percent of applicants (akin to Ivy League acceptance rates in the U.S.)—and kick out teacher trainees who aren’t up to snuff. Candidates observe veteran teachers, co-design and execute lesson plans, and receive feedback from peers, mentors, and even students. The film provides a first-hand view of Finland’s classrooms, and is worth viewing in that regard. Pay particular attention to the segments on teacher training, and please don’t be hypnotized by Wagner’s fluffy thoughts on the “culture of trust.”

Whereas other noisy Midwestern states have been audibly discordant of late, the education buzz emanating from Illinois has been positive—from both sides of the education-reform divide. That’s because the Land of Lincoln is currently advancing a negotiated education-reform bill, painstakingly constructed to reflect the desires of both traditional education groups and reformers. In fact, both Stand for Children and the Illinois Education Association (IEA) endorse the measure—and all fifty-nine out of fifty-nine state senators signed it. At first glance, this new legislation seems to be a wholesale win for Illinois’s reform community: It rewards teachers for good performance, eases the process for dismissing poor performers, ties tenure to performance evaluations, and removes seniority as the sole basis for determining layoffs. Maybe Illinois reformers—who unleashed an avalanche of political donations last fall—backed the IEA into a corner, sending the message: Either join us or get steamrolled. But dive a little deeper and other features emerge that ought give reformers pause. For example, when budget cuts force teacher layoffs, though seniority can no longer be the sole determinant, proxies for it such as certification and relevant experience can take its place. Regarding teachers’ performance evaluations, they’re to be locally approved, with neither a state-based student-achievement requirement nor a deadline for implementation. We’re all for consensus, but sooner or later Kumbaya has to yield to some butt-kicking if real change is to take place. And we’ve got a feeling that, with a firecracker like J.C. Brizard stepping into the role of Chicago schools chief under Mayor Rahm Emanuel, the Windy City at least won’t be tranquil for long. (Photo by Rich Bowen)

Successful school turnarounds have long been elusive—if not downright impossible to find. Yet a newly piloted model out of Boston shows some promise. The Teacher Turnaround Teams (T3) program, a Teach Plus and Boston Public Schools (BPS) joint venture, recruits and places groups of effective, experienced teachers in select BPS buildings, infusing these struggling schools with both a “critical mass” of accomplished teachers and a teacher-leader cadre ready to up the abilities of their peers. At the two pilot schools participating in the program, T3 teachers—who have been chosen through an intense application process—make up about 25 percent of the teacher force. And it seems to be working. Eight months into the program’s inaugural year, T3 schools are seeing marked student improvement. But that’s not all. Along with catalyzing achievement gains, T3 offers standout teachers the chance to lead, while remaining in the classroom—a “career ladder” if you will. T3ers run weekly team meetings with teachers in their grades and subject matters, debriefing, mentoring other teachers, and vetting team concerns. “It’s where the profession needs to move,” explains elementary school teacher Callie Liebmann. Kinks remain to be ironed out, but the concept is compelling: Recruit a cohort of high-caliber folks, place them in leadership roles within the teaching profession, and offer them the school-based autonomy needed to make smart shifts. Now if someone could work through just how to scale this all up.

“Teacher-Leader Corps Help Turnaround Schools,” by Stephen Sawchuck, Education Week, April 18, 2011.

In this ambitious compendium, authors pull together school-choice research as it pertains to student outcomes; parent choice; and competition and segregation effects. Through its chapters, the volume does a mighty fine job answering some tough questions relating to school choice: Do charters cream? Do vouchers in D.C. work? What criteria do parents use when choosing a school? Do students availing themselves of choice programs experience greater achievement in their new schools? Researchers of various stripes, including Paul Peterson and John Witte, pull data from Indianapolis to the Netherlands. The bottom line: We’re headed in the right direction—but there’s a lot we could do better. To that end, School Choice and School Improvement calls out some of the hang-ups in the school-choice movement (the underwhelming effects of intradistrict transfer being one and high school application processes that derail some would-be school-choice students being another). It also gives some practical advice (e.g.: how to disseminate school information to parents). This volume offers a balanced, above-the-fray look at look the current realities and future possibilities of choice in our schools.

A joint production of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the American Institutes for Research (AIR), this report compiles data from eleven previous surveys, seven focus groups, and three case studies to gauge how Generation Y teachers—those born between 1977 and 1989—view their profession. Overall, it paints Gen Y teachers as optimistic and progressive, concluding that they crave more feedback on their effectiveness, more peer sharing and learning, recognition and rewards for strong performance, meaningful evaluation systems, and technology in the classrooms. Interestingly for an AFT publication, it paints these young teachers as more reform-minded than they probably are. For example, the study cites the Retaining Teacher Talent survey and reports that near 61 percent of Gen Y teachers think stellar colleagues should be rewarded. But it fails to showcase another finding from the same survey: Sixty-seven percent of Gen Yers would themselves prefer a school with a guaranteed annual raise of 3 percent and no opportunity for merit pay, as opposed to a school with opportunities for merit pay but no set tenure and salary structure. At the end of the day, Gen Y teachers may well be slightly more reformy than their older colleagues, but it would be folly to think that reformers looking to tear down tenure and implement performance-based pay will find droves of allies in the younger generation of classroom practitioners.

Jane D. Coggshall, Ellen Behrstock-Sherratt, and Karen Drill, “Workplaces That Support High-Performing Teaching and Learning: Insights from Generation Y Teachers” (Washington, D.C.: American Federation of Teachers; Naperville, IL: American Institutes for Research, April 2011).

As states and districts seek to overhaul teacher-evaluation systems, this NBER paper answers a salient question: Do evaluations actually improve a teacher’s performance? That’s one hope of reformers and unions alike—that clear and regular feedback will help instructors improve their craft. Based on eight years of data from Cincinnati’s Teacher Evaluation System (TES), the answer is yes—in math, anyway. TES is an evaluation system that uses periodic, unannounced classroom observations coupled with student-work portfolios. For this report, researchers examined data from 2003-04 to 2009-10 to ascertain the impact of TES on mid-career teachers (those in the system for five to nineteen years). Building on performance-evaluation research, these analyses looked not just at any immediate improvements incurred during a teacher’s evaluation period, but at the long-term impacts resulting from participation in TES itself. They do this by comparing achievement of students taught before teacher participation in TES with student achievement during or after TES participation, while also controlling for students’ prior achievement, teacher experience, and relevant demographic variables. Though there were no significant differences found in reading, teacher performance in math improved both during the evaluation period and afterwards. For example, a teacher whose pupils had typically scored in the 50th percentile on math tests before being evaluated begins to see results in the 55th percentile range in the years after evaluation. Teachers who scored in the lowest quartile on their evaluations showed the greatest improvements. As we rethink teacher evaluation, these are promising findings indeed. But be forewarned: A system like TES comes with a lofty price tag—roughly $7,500 for each teacher evaluated (over the course of the six studied years). If districts or states plan on taking it to scale, some financial juggling will be in order.

Eric S. Taylor and John H. Tyler, “The Effect of Evaluation on Performance: Evidence from Longitudinal Student Achievement Data of Mid-career Teachers,” (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2011).

Since the 2000 PISA and TIMSS test results catapulted Finland’s education system to international acclaim, scholars around the globe have been debating the sources of that success. This film, produced by Robert Compton (of Two Million Minutes fame) and starring Tony Wagner (author of The Global Achievement Gap), weighs in on this saturated debate. Through classroom visits, interviews with students and teachers, and statistics that roll across the screen, it showcases Finland’s myriad educational idiosyncrasies. It explains that the country has no high-stakes testing (save at the end of secondary school) or teacher-evaluation system, and students do little homework. This system creates a “culture of trust,” which Wagner heralds as the magic bean of Finland’s success. What is most interesting about the film, though, is its depiction of Finland’s rigorous, intense, and competitive teacher-training programs—a more probable explanation for the nation’s academic strength. These programs accept a mere 10 percent of applicants (akin to Ivy League acceptance rates in the U.S.)—and kick out teacher trainees who aren’t up to snuff. Candidates observe veteran teachers, co-design and execute lesson plans, and receive feedback from peers, mentors, and even students. The film provides a first-hand view of Finland’s classrooms, and is worth viewing in that regard. Pay particular attention to the segments on teacher training, and please don’t be hypnotized by Wagner’s fluffy thoughts on the “culture of trust.”