The Education Gadfly Weekly

Since 2002, the Sunshine State has run a popular tax-credit scholarship program: At present, over 15,000 low-income students in grades three through ten access 1,000-plus private schools through it. But how effective has the program been at promoting their academic success? According to this annual report (the fourth in the series) from project director and Northwestern U. scholar David Figlio: quite. Florida’s tax-credit scholarship program (FTC) serves a particularly needy subset of the state’s students: FTC participants are significantly lower-income and lower-performing than the average student qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch. Yet this year’s FTC participants maintained their performance on norm-referenced tests (like the Stanford Achievement Test or Iowa Test of Basic Skills) relative to students nationally, regardless of income. Going further, Figlio compares students who barely missed the income cut-off mark for participation against those who do make it into the program, finding a small but substantive positive effect from participation in both reading and math. These differences are larger than in previous years, suggesting, says Figlio, “that successive cohorts of participating students may be gaining ground over time.” These findings are encouraging—though Figlio adds some sobering qualifications. Comparing scores across a variety of tests (FTC participants take any of three tests, while public-school students take another) requires some complex statistical yoga, for example. Likewise, conclusions about causation are full of caveats, since applicants are not randomly selected for participation. Still and all, this report offers a solid boost for the tax-credit crowd—especially important in this “year of school choice.”

David N. Figlio, “Evaluation of the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program: Participation, Compliance and Test Scores in 2009-10” (Northwestern University and National Bureau of Economic Research, August 2011).

This report from Third Way, a self-proclaimed “moderate” policy think tank, has garnered much attention this week, following its Wall Street Journal profile on Monday. But should it have? By linking NAEP data to schools’ percentages of students on free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL), the report comes to three conclusions: most American students attend middle-class schools; middle-class schools spend less per student and have a greater student-teacher ratio than wealthy and lower-income schools; and middle-class schools are underperforming. Thing is, the report doesn’t actually look at middle-class schools; but, rather, at those that are economically diverse: The definition used here for “middle class” is a school with between 26 and 75 percent of its students on FRPL. The analysts don’t have a clue how many students actually belong to the “middle class.” (All we can learn from school-level data is the percentage of poor (and non-poor) kids, as defined by FRPL eligibility.) Further, the report’s focus on “low” school spending ($10,350 per pupil) and “high” student-teacher ratio (17.5:1) as ailments of our middle-class schools is also problematic, as it implies a need to bump school spending and drop class sizes in these schools—reforms that have already been tried and found wanting. A rigorous report examining the efficacy of middle-class schools is surely in order (if someone could figure out a way to access family income data for individual students); this piece from Third Way is not it.

Tess Stovall and Deirdre Dolan, “Incomplete: How Middle Class Schools Aren’t Making the Grade,” (Washington, D.C.: The Third Way, September 2011).

Back during the frosty days of January, the Center for Education Policy issued a bleak account of states’ progress toward implementation of the Common Core State Standards. Reporting on a survey conducted at the end of 2010, CEP found that, on key implementation issues like curriculum development and assessment alignment, states had made little progress. This newest piece from the same shop reports on a spring 2011 district survey of the same ilk—and the responses are much cheerier. From it, we learn that two-thirds of districts have already started developing a plan for implementing the standards this academic year. And fully 80 percent had undertaken at least one district-initiated implementation activity (including developing or purchasing new curricular materials or developing new local assessments)—a figure that would surely be higher today. Still, two-thirds of surveyed districts cite unclear state guidance as a major challenge of CCSS implementation. One benefit of the Common Core standards is the potential collaboration between districts—and among states—on very things like curricular materials and assessments. While these individual district-led initiatives should be commended, the states must start owning implementation burdens—and not hoist them on local education agencies alone.

These days, teacher-evaluation systems that incorporate students’ test scores are spreading like wildfire. And there’s little sign that these initiatives will be contained to the twenty-six states that currently have them. Yet checks for potential cheating on these selfsame assessments haven’t been as vigorously promulgated, a point nattily made this week by Alexander Russo. According to a USA Today analysis, only half the states either conducted erasure analyses (to check for cheating) or used computer-based assessments in 2010-11. (Perhaps there’s lots of overlap between these two groups of states—but Gadfly wouldn’t bet on it.) Thing is, with strapped budgets and looming NCLB proficiency requirements, many states see few incentives to spend beaucoup bucks on erasure analyses. Fortunately, this tempest may soon end. Both PARCC and SBAC, the two groups working on creating Common Core assessments, will employ computer-based tests beginning in the 2014-15 school year. This use of technology will make test erasures a moot point for the forty-four states plus D.C. that have signed on to one of the consortia and adopted the CCSS—though it will surely usher in the need for other safeguards against exam hacking and other malfeasances. But these jurisdictions also benefit from economy of scale, which can help curb cheating, without breaking the bank. CCSS adopters: 1; test cheating: 0.

“Few states examine test erasures,” by Marisol Bello and Greg Toppo, USA Today, September 13, 2011.

“Teachers are put to the test,” by Stephanie Banchero and David Kesmodel, Wall Street Journal, September 13, 2011.

“Big States Don’t Check for Cheating, Despite Scandals,” by Louis Beckett, ProPublica and Education Week, September 14, 2011.

You've got ninety more minutes of instructional time.
Ready? Go!
(Photo by Search Engine People Blog)

In the Chicago Public Schools, the average school day is just five hours and eight minutes, the briefest in Illinois and one of the shortest in the nation. (A big deal, when you lay this fact next to all the research on the benefits of added instructional time.) Yet efforts to extend the day have long been derailed by the obdurate Chicago Teachers Union. Not even Arne Duncan could alter that reality. Now enters Illinois’s newly enacted SB7 and Chicago’s newly elected spitfire mayor, Rahm Emanuel. SB7 allows him to unilaterally lengthen the school day, starting in 2012. Emanuel, unimpressed with that timeline (or daunted by the CTU’s intransigence), has embarked on a building-by-building campaign to lengthen the school day in the Windy City. So far, teachers at six (and counting) CPS elementary schools have voted to accept Emanuel’s offer of a two-percent raise and $150,000 in additional school funding in return for waiving this item in their contract and adding ninety minutes to the school day. In response to these “rogue” teachers, the CTU has filed suit against Emanuel and his school board, accusing them of unfair labor practices. CTU officials should carefully note against whom they fight. It was not Emanuel who signed the death certificate of Chicago’s abridged school day but the teachers. Taking up arms against their own ranks? No good can come of that.

Earlier this week, David Brooks floored readers—and vindicated nostalgic old grumps—when he detailed new research out of Notre Dame showing that young adults lack an ability to discuss, or even define, morality. That’s the bad news. The good news comes from Paul Tough. In his NY Times Magazine piece, Tough profiles two disparate school models—one, an elite Gotham private school; the other, the KIPP network—and how they are both deliberately (and successfully) infusing lessons on character, grit, and morality into the veins of their students. Both schools even appraise their students’ moral fiber using a twenty-four item questionnaire developed by researchers at UPenn. (The questionnaire assesses students on both “performance” character and “moral” character—whether you can persevere through hardship, and whether you can remain compassionate while doing so.) Kudos to Riverdale Country School and KIPP for tackling these tough issues—and for giving old grumps a reason for hope.

“What if the Secret to Success is Failure?,” by Paul Tough, New York Times Magazine, September 14, 2011.

“If It Feels Right…,” by David Brooks, New York Times, September 12, 2011.

Since 2002, the Sunshine State has run a popular tax-credit scholarship program: At present, over 15,000 low-income students in grades three through ten access 1,000-plus private schools through it. But how effective has the program been at promoting their academic success? According to this annual report (the fourth in the series) from project director and Northwestern U. scholar David Figlio: quite. Florida’s tax-credit scholarship program (FTC) serves a particularly needy subset of the state’s students: FTC participants are significantly lower-income and lower-performing than the average student qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch. Yet this year’s FTC participants maintained their performance on norm-referenced tests (like the Stanford Achievement Test or Iowa Test of Basic Skills) relative to students nationally, regardless of income. Going further, Figlio compares students who barely missed the income cut-off mark for participation against those who do make it into the program, finding a small but substantive positive effect from participation in both reading and math. These differences are larger than in previous years, suggesting, says Figlio, “that successive cohorts of participating students may be gaining ground over time.” These findings are encouraging—though Figlio adds some sobering qualifications. Comparing scores across a variety of tests (FTC participants take any of three tests, while public-school students take another) requires some complex statistical yoga, for example. Likewise, conclusions about causation are full of caveats, since applicants are not randomly selected for participation. Still and all, this report offers a solid boost for the tax-credit crowd—especially important in this “year of school choice.”

David N. Figlio, “Evaluation of the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program: Participation, Compliance and Test Scores in 2009-10” (Northwestern University and National Bureau of Economic Research, August 2011).

This report from Third Way, a self-proclaimed “moderate” policy think tank, has garnered much attention this week, following its Wall Street Journal profile on Monday. But should it have? By linking NAEP data to schools’ percentages of students on free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL), the report comes to three conclusions: most American students attend middle-class schools; middle-class schools spend less per student and have a greater student-teacher ratio than wealthy and lower-income schools; and middle-class schools are underperforming. Thing is, the report doesn’t actually look at middle-class schools; but, rather, at those that are economically diverse: The definition used here for “middle class” is a school with between 26 and 75 percent of its students on FRPL. The analysts don’t have a clue how many students actually belong to the “middle class.” (All we can learn from school-level data is the percentage of poor (and non-poor) kids, as defined by FRPL eligibility.) Further, the report’s focus on “low” school spending ($10,350 per pupil) and “high” student-teacher ratio (17.5:1) as ailments of our middle-class schools is also problematic, as it implies a need to bump school spending and drop class sizes in these schools—reforms that have already been tried and found wanting. A rigorous report examining the efficacy of middle-class schools is surely in order (if someone could figure out a way to access family income data for individual students); this piece from Third Way is not it.

Tess Stovall and Deirdre Dolan, “Incomplete: How Middle Class Schools Aren’t Making the Grade,” (Washington, D.C.: The Third Way, September 2011).

Back during the frosty days of January, the Center for Education Policy issued a bleak account of states’ progress toward implementation of the Common Core State Standards. Reporting on a survey conducted at the end of 2010, CEP found that, on key implementation issues like curriculum development and assessment alignment, states had made little progress. This newest piece from the same shop reports on a spring 2011 district survey of the same ilk—and the responses are much cheerier. From it, we learn that two-thirds of districts have already started developing a plan for implementing the standards this academic year. And fully 80 percent had undertaken at least one district-initiated implementation activity (including developing or purchasing new curricular materials or developing new local assessments)—a figure that would surely be higher today. Still, two-thirds of surveyed districts cite unclear state guidance as a major challenge of CCSS implementation. One benefit of the Common Core standards is the potential collaboration between districts—and among states—on very things like curricular materials and assessments. While these individual district-led initiatives should be commended, the states must start owning implementation burdens—and not hoist them on local education agencies alone.