The Education Gadfly Weekly

Paul Teske, Jody Fitzpatrick, and Tracey O'Brien
Center on Reinventing Public Education
July 2009

Transportation is one of those down-to-earth issues that many of us pointy-headed policy wonks tend to overlook. But any effort to offer parents options outside of their neighborhoods has to grapple with it. In this report, the authors interviewed 600 low-income and middle-class parents in Denver and Washington, D.C. It chose Denver because of its low population density and limited public transportation, and D.C. for its typical East Coast urban density and ample rail and bus options. Across both cities, one quarter of respondents said their child was not attending the school they preferred due to transportation difficulties. That percentage increased to one-third for low-income families. Furthermore, two-thirds of respondents said they would choose a better school for their child if transportation options improved; a whopping eighty percent of low-income families would do the same. Interestingly, even though the District has a richer array of public transportation options, answers from parents in each city did not differ significantly. The authors fault a lack of information and archaic district transportation models based on a pre-choice era. Their solution is transportation vouchers, which would let parents spend the roughly $700 allocated annually per student for transportation as they saw fit--servicing their cars, paying for public transportation, etc. With charter schools and choice options on the rise, the issue of transportation limitations will only grow in prominence; this report is a great introduction. Read it here.

Paul E. Barton
Educational Testing Service
July 2009

This national standards primer takes a look at the who, what, where, when, and why of this movement as it has alternately spurted and stalled over the last 25 years. Or as Michael T. Nettles explains in the preface, "While the report is not a ‘yes' or ‘no' about uniform national standards, the clear message is that anyone who wants to make a sound and reasoned judgment on the question needs to do much homework first. This report will help with that." The scope is broad: Having laid out the history of national standards, author Paul Barton looks at the current conversation, including, in particular, the variation in how we define "national standards"--do we mean content and curriculum, performance standards, or student achievement? The common conflation of these three concepts has only served to confuse the movement, he explains. This confusion is also reflected in the sheer magnitude of variation in states, districts, schools, and students. From basic school structure to students' differing levels of cognitive development upon entering kindergarten, the American public education system certainly seems to reflect its bottom-up history. Tackling that organic history will be a tough battle for any national movement, especially this one. In fact, the risks and difficulties it faces mean that any set of national standards will necessarily be voluntary. And it's yet unclear how these standards will remain national but not federal, who will oversee and update them, and how they will be implemented. Don't read this report and expect to come away with all your questions answered; you'll be sorely disappointed. But the reality--that you will find yourself with more and better- informed questions--will likely prove more helpful anyway. Read it here.

With the first quarter of 2009 witnessing the sharpest decline in state tax receipts on record, it comes as no surprise that many states are scrambling to win federal "Race to the Top" dollars. The four-plus billion dollars in extra cash comes from Secretary Arne Duncan's discretionary kitty--and he's been very clear about what kinds of behaviors deserve to be rewarded.

Duncan's most-publicized comments have centered around raising state charter caps, but the Obama Administration and the stimulus legislation itself has four broader goals: 1) turning around low-performing schools (in part by expanding charter schools); 2) enacting rigorous (and preferably common) academic standards; 3) improving teacher quality and the equitable distribution thereof; and 4) beefing up state data systems. (We'll know more about the specifics tomorrow when the Race to the Top application is released.)

Some states, like Colorado, Florida, and Louisiana, seem to be sprinting towards their share of the money. Others, like Ohio, are stumbling into the sweepstakes. Where is the Buckeye State falling short and where is it making the grade? Let's take a look:

Charter schools and turnarounds
Falling Short. In both his 2007 and 2009 state biennium budget proposals, Ohio's Democratic Governor Ted Strickland sought to set back Ohio's charter school program big time. In fact, his budget proposals would have largely dismantled the state's program by creating a moratorium on new schools and imposing myriad regulatory provisions on those that already existed, good and bad alike.

Specifically, the governor's plan sought to bar high performers like KIPP and Building Excellent Schools from the state; prohibit for-profit operators of every sort (even decent ones like National Heritage Academies, K12, Connections Academy, and Edison); and reduce charter funding to all schools. Thankfully, these efforts to pulverize the state's charter program were resisted forcefully by House and Senate Republicans in both 2007 and in 2009.

Making the Grade. Because of staunch Republican support, Ohio's charter school program is still fairly welcoming to decent charter operators, though the state has maintained its ironclad moratorium on new virtual schools. Further, Ohio has implemented some of the most rigorous charter accountability policies in the country, including automatic school closure for those that are persistently failing.

Bottom line. Despite the best counter-efforts of the governor and leading Democratic lawmakers over the past few years, the Buckeye State is apt to be seen by the Obama administration as a fairly charter-friendly state.

Standards and accountability
Falling Short. Governor Strickland's 2009 budget proposal also sought to rewrite Ohio's academic standards and assessments so they would pay significantly more attention to so-called "21st Century skills"--e.g., media literacy, cultural awareness, adaptability, responsibility, etc.--than to the "three Rs" and actual knowledge. The governor got his way on this front with the passage of the state budget last week, and of the seven new legislative requirements facing Ohio's standards-setters, six deal with mandating that the state develop 21st Century skills, while only one deals with core content.

Making the Grade. Ohio has committed itself to working fully with the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers in the effort to create common academic standards, no doubt in part to position itself well in this Race to the Top. And the pragmatic folks at the Ohio Department of Education and the Ohio Board of Regents, who are tasked with redesigning the state's standards and assessments in a period of severe staffing shortages and budget cuts, are more than happy to collaborate wherever they possibly can.

Bottom line. Despite a new law that focuses almost exclusively on ill-defined, nebulous, and extremely hard-to-measure 21st Century skills, the practical realities of creating workable academic standards and aligned assessments in a brutal economic environment may very well result in Ohio getting this right if the national effort pays dividends.

Improving teacher quality
Falling Short. Ohio is a state with little appetite for merit pay. Currently, no school district has a merit pay plan in place. However, several are beginning to dabble in this area, including the state's largest district--Columbus City Schools. Governor Strickland's new school reform plan, however, does nothing to encourage it. In addition, Ohio maintains significant teacher certification barriers for the entry of such groups as Teach For America (TFA) and The New Teacher Project (TNTP).

Making the Grade. Under Ohio's new law, tenure decisions have been moved from the third year of a teacher's career to the seventh. This means that districts have more time to weed out bad apples before they get that coveted job protection. Since most teachers have hit their stride in the classroom by the sixth or seventh year, this provision is fairer than current practices because it allows rookie teachers to get their footing, and awards tenure on more than just surviving the first two or three years. Further, Ohio is starting to make a concerted effort to streamline the traditional teacher certification process so as to make it more appealing to non-traditional educators.   

Bottom Line. Governor Strickland has moved Ohio forward some with his teacher tenure changes and new teacher certification rules but falls short on merit pay and encouraging and supporting innovative teaching programs like TFA. Further, there is no linkage of data to teacher performance. These are issues stressed by Arne Duncan in recent months, but it remains to be seen if one will trump the other when it comes to doling out dollars.

Beefing up the state's data system
Making the Grade. This is an area where Ohio stands fairly strong. The state is a member of the Data Quality Campaign and has met eight of the Campaign's ten elements for quality longitudinal data systems. Further, the state has been at the forefront in the use of value-added achievement data and there seems to be a genuine commitment by political leaders and state policymakers to keep Ohio moving forward on this front even in tough economic times.

Bottom Line. Ohio will score well in this category.

---

It's ironic. Economic and political events have conspired against Strickland, despite his best efforts, in such a way as to put the Buckeye State in a fairly decent position to tap into Race to the Top dollars. Largely because of push-back by Republicans (especially on charter school policy), this Democrat might receive a windfall of federal funds.

And of course there are the political considerations. The Obama Administration seems eager to give this swing state some of the cash, and to do everything it can to ensure that Governor Strickland is still Governor Strickland in 2012. (He's up for re-election in 2010.) This serendipity, combined with some of the Governor's own decent views on teacher quality and the effective use of data, should put Ohio in a formidable position for these federal school reform dollars, for better or for worse.

When a prospective robber "does his homework," the implication is figurative. That is, unless you're this pair of robbers from Sacramento, CA. The two teens, aged 15 and 17, respectively, broke into a home in the Golden State's capital. When the house's owner returned, the aspiring pilferers dropped their backpacks to speed up their fence-jumping retreat. Unluckily for them, inside one of the packs was a school assignment with the suspect's name on it, leading to a speedy arrest. Now, this teaser of a story leaves a whole lot of questions unanswered, starting with, of course, why two students were doing homework in the middle of July. Could we possibly be dealing with summer-school students freelancing in crime? And will they get marked down for tardy assignments presumably held as evidence by the police? Did the suspects get to finish their homework while in juvy jail? But one thing is sure: Crime never pays, and sometimes schoolwork doesn't, either.

"Suspects break into home, leave homework behind," by Steve Large, CBS 13 Sacramento, July 16, 2009

Milwaukee's New Schools Approval Board, created after intense legislative negotiations earlier this summer, has released its first set of decisions: three approvals, sixteen denials. That would make it among the most rigorous and quality-conscious charter school authorizers in the country, except it doesn't work in the charter sector. These were to be private schools, aiming to participate in Brew City's voucher program. The board is part of the Howard Fuller-led Institute for the Transformation of Learning at Marquette University. It was Fuller, in fact, who brokered a deal this spring that ramped up accountability for participating schools in reaction to concerns over low quality. Like a good charter authorizer, the board is looking not just at the financial viability of the new schools, but sound pedagogical practices, too. Institute assistant director Robert Pavlik explains, "My hope is that as anyone goes forward to open a school, they would recognize what an honor and privilege it is" to do so. Not only is this a promising development for Milwaukee, it also demonstrates the blurring of lines between public and private, charter and voucher. Which is only going to make it harder for people like Arne Duncan to explain why they support one but not the other.

"Just 3 new voucher schools approved," by Alan J. Borsuk, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, July 20, 2009

Sol Stern is a man with a plan. The 2009 New York City teacher contract is set to expire three days before Election Day, and Mayor Bloomberg's overturning of term limits mean the United Federation of Teachers and that hizzoner will be going to bat once more. This is a golden opportunity, explains Stern, to make some fundamental--but politically feasible--changes that will, once and for all, put the needs of students above adults. His suggestions number seven. Among them, there's reforming of the teacher lockstep pay scale to better reflect meaningful steps to improve their practice. And there's using master teachers as instructional leaders and mentors instead of more expensive and administratively-minded associate principals. Stern's not here to mince words. On the subject of retaining good teachers, he blames, in part, rookies' ill-preparation: "Klein and Weingarten should deliver a joint message to education facilities (i.e., ed schools): the city's new teachers need to learn how to manage classrooms in tough neighborhoods, not how to regurgitate the radical education theories of Paulo Freire, William Ayers, and Jonathan Kozol." Stern would also like to see the renaissance of the Chancellor's District, a turnaround zone that included all of the city's underperforming schools, and which Klein abolished in 2003. These schools should then be given freer rein to copy the successful practices of charter schools, since, "after all, that was the charter-school experiment's original purpose--to be a laboratory for innovative education practices." If Bloomberg, Klein, and Weingarten know what's good for them, they'll take this treatise seriously come November. 

"A Teachers' Contract for a New Era," by Sol Stern, City Journal, July 21, 2009

The Gotham teacher aides who'll be jobless come September are not victims of the financial crisis. Instead, the cause of their unemployment is the source of their salaries. Parents at a number of affluent public schools have contributed $200,000 to 300,000 a year to pay directly for the additional adult help. They love being able to lower student-teacher ratios and are more than willing to cover the cost out of their own pockets. But the United Federation of Teachers is not so pleased, filing several complaints to the NYC Department of Education because, under its contract, all school employees must be DOE employees, and, more importantly, union members. City officials have finally cowed to their demands. A UFT spokesman spoke plainly when he explained that the freelance parent-paid aides were bad for business: "It's hurting our union members, and to some extent it could be hurting kids..." We're glad the UFT is admitting to its priorities--union first, then kids as an afterthought--but the implications are awful. Under the new policy, schools will be forced to hire more expensive unionized paraprofessionals, many of whom are neither as experienced as the current aides, nor even required to have a four year degree. And since the city has instituted a hiring freeze, the parent-paid aides can't even reapply to DOE for a unionized version of their jobs. Here's one silver lining: this action is sure to radicalize the affluent (and influential) parents who must bid farewell to their beloved aides because of the intransigence of the union. And radicalized parents can go a long way.

"Parent-Paid Aides Ordered Out of City Schools," by Winnie Hu, New York Times, July 20, 2009

Paul E. Barton
Educational Testing Service
July 2009

This national standards primer takes a look at the who, what, where, when, and why of this movement as it has alternately spurted and stalled over the last 25 years. Or as Michael T. Nettles explains in the preface, "While the report is not a ‘yes' or ‘no' about uniform national standards, the clear message is that anyone who wants to make a sound and reasoned judgment on the question needs to do much homework first. This report will help with that." The scope is broad: Having laid out the history of national standards, author Paul Barton looks at the current conversation, including, in particular, the variation in how we define "national standards"--do we mean content and curriculum, performance standards, or student achievement? The common conflation of these three concepts has only served to confuse the movement, he explains. This confusion is also reflected in the sheer magnitude of variation in states, districts, schools, and students. From basic school structure to students' differing levels of cognitive development upon entering kindergarten, the American public education system certainly seems to reflect its bottom-up history. Tackling that organic history will be a tough battle for any national movement, especially this one. In fact, the risks and difficulties it faces mean that any set of national standards will necessarily be voluntary. And it's yet unclear how these standards will remain national but not federal, who will oversee and update them, and how they will be implemented. Don't read this report and expect to come away with all your questions answered; you'll be sorely disappointed. But the reality--that you will find yourself with more and better- informed questions--will likely prove more helpful anyway. Read it here.

Paul Teske, Jody Fitzpatrick, and Tracey O'Brien
Center on Reinventing Public Education
July 2009

Transportation is one of those down-to-earth issues that many of us pointy-headed policy wonks tend to overlook. But any effort to offer parents options outside of their neighborhoods has to grapple with it. In this report, the authors interviewed 600 low-income and middle-class parents in Denver and Washington, D.C. It chose Denver because of its low population density and limited public transportation, and D.C. for its typical East Coast urban density and ample rail and bus options. Across both cities, one quarter of respondents said their child was not attending the school they preferred due to transportation difficulties. That percentage increased to one-third for low-income families. Furthermore, two-thirds of respondents said they would choose a better school for their child if transportation options improved; a whopping eighty percent of low-income families would do the same. Interestingly, even though the District has a richer array of public transportation options, answers from parents in each city did not differ significantly. The authors fault a lack of information and archaic district transportation models based on a pre-choice era. Their solution is transportation vouchers, which would let parents spend the roughly $700 allocated annually per student for transportation as they saw fit--servicing their cars, paying for public transportation, etc. With charter schools and choice options on the rise, the issue of transportation limitations will only grow in prominence; this report is a great introduction. Read it here.