The Education Gadfly Weekly

Amanda Datnow, Vicki Park, Brianna Kennedy
Center on Educational Governance
USC Rossier School of Education (commissioned by New Schools Venture Fund)
2008

This study examines the use of data in four high schools, two of them mid-sized district schools and two small charters (all serving poor children), focusing on its use in the classroom and as a tool for teachers. Through interviews and observation, the authors describe how these schools use data to set goals, implement "user-friendly" data systems, align their curriculum and assessment systems, and share information. At one school, for example, an "information platform" provides data not only to teachers and school leaders but to parents as well (although only about their own children). This same school has a second data system, which acts as a "bridge training program" to help students "plan for post secondary options." It includes an individualized electronic portfolio for each student that is monitored by a guidance counselor and can be accessed by school staff. The report also gives brief attention to the use of data for management purposes, namely, how to run schools effectively (as Rick Hess and Jon Fullerton urge in A Byte at the Apple). For data systems really to succeed, the authors argue, a school must create a common "culture" of data use; since culture can vary not only from school to school but also from department to department, it's an acute problem in most high schools. Unfortunately, the report neglects to compare these four data-driven high schools with their data-inept counterparts, a contrast that surely would have been illuminating. It also does not attempt to prove that these practices lead to higher achievement. But surely these four schools are pushing in the right direction and engaging their teachers in thoughtful, analytical approaches to instruction, guided by such data as can be made available. You can find it online here.

This comprehensive report neatly summarizes what we know about teacher effectiveness, turnover, distribution, and tenure--and their relation to the overrepresentation of low quality teachers in high poverty schools. Miller and Chait start off by examining the concept of teacher quality, arguing that traditional qualifications and licensure matter far less than value-added measures and experience. While allowing that value-added measures aren't perfect, they note that these are "at least as good as subjective ratings made by principals, at least where the very most effective and very least effective teachers are concerned." A noteworthy point, considering that it's often this same principal subjectivity that tenure advocates cite as justifying tenure in the first place. Next up is teacher turnover. Miller and Chait build the case that not only are high-quality teachers distributed unevenly thanks to poor working conditions, HR practices, and personal preferences, but that teacher turnover patterns exacerbate the disparity. "Effectiveness breeds contentment," they say, i.e. effective teachers are more likely to stay put. But high-poverty schools often have fewer effective teachers to begin with, and the good ones often leave quickly for better schools or other lines of work. Why? In this realm, opposites do not attract. Good teachers want to work alongside other good teachers, and teachers generally seek schools where they share "an ethnic or cultural affinity." Thus, "a vicious cycle" is born wherein bad schools attract fewer effective teachers and then lose them to better schools, making it ever harder to attract the next crop of talent. Ineffective teachers, meanwhile, are passed around like hot potatoes by bad schools, since tenure makes it difficult to fire them. The authors don't engage in an all-out attack on tenure but do urge policymakers to reexamine present policies. "The role that tenure policies play in preserving a skewed distribution of teacher quality cannot be ignored," they conclude. Indeed. The full report is here.

George Noell, Bethany Porter, R. Maria Patt, and Amanda Dahir
Louisiana State University
November 2008

This first-rate value-added study helps to fill a gaping hole in teacher quality research, namely, what impact do teacher prep programs (TPP) have on student achievement? The study, commissioned by the Louisiana Board of Regents, examined seven such in Louisiana (the only ones to have met the study criteria, which included having at least 25 graduates, either in their first or second years of teaching). These included five university-based programs and two private providers. Researchers looked at state test achievement data from 2004-2007 for students from 70 districts in grades 4-9. After linking student and teacher data and drawing a comparison group of experienced teachers (who had similar class compositions) to new TPP teachers, the researchers analyzed the data through a rigorous statistical model (hierarchical linear modeling, which acknowledges that students are "nested" in classrooms and classrooms "nested" in schools). The results, which controlled for students' prior achievement and demographics, showed that one alternative provider, the New Teacher Project (TNTP), and two university-based programs, University of Louisiana at Monroe and Northwestern State University, demonstrated consistent positive results for students across four core content areas (math, reading, language arts, and science). The New Teacher Project, in fact, did especially well preparing math teachers; TNTP math teachers outperformed more experienced teachers in this subject area by higher (though not statistically significant) margins. Part of a series on teacher prep in Louisiana, this report makes a strong case for increased accountability of preparation programs. It also makes a strong case for expanding the preparation process beyond the ivied walls. You can find it here.

A substitute teacher in Britain has landed on Santa's naughty list this year. Annoyed by her youngsters' rowdy excitement over the fat man's impending arrival, the teacher blurted out to the class: "It's your parents who leave presents on Christmas Day!" Imagine the instant transformation: pure glee to pitiful heartbreak. While it's true that most tikes treat substitute teachers with less than proper deference, this particular "supply teacher" (as the Brits call ‘em) deserves a swift boot down the chimney. The class of seven-year-olds "burst into tears." Come on, scroogy supply, you should know better! Not surprisingly, fuming parents weren't satisfied with a bag of coal; the school has promised not to hire the substitute again. But thankfully, this Christmas story has a happy ending. To salvage the innocence of his sobbing progeny, one parent (Santa's helper no doubt) had a brilliant idea. "We told him that she [the teacher] did not believe in Father Christmas because of her religion and he's fine now." Let's hope this teacher learned her lesson.

"Primary school teacher who told children: ‘Santa does not exist' is fired," Daily Mail Reporter, December 11, 2008

Shame on the Washington Post. A recent barrage of charter school coverage by said paper, including a front page story brazenly entitled "Public Role, Private Gain," has wrongly raked a civic minded business man over the metaphoric coals. He's Thomas A. Nida, chairman of the DC Public Charter School Board, the primary authorizer of charter schools in DC, and an employee of United Bank. The problem, alleges the Post, which these days seems to prefer muckraking and scandal mongering to accuracy or fairness, is that United Bank makes loans to DC charters and Nida's yearly bonus is partly derived from the loans he generates. This may be true, but without Nida there would be no loans at all--and that's something worth considering. Before he stepped in, banks typically thought charters--especially loans for their facilities--were too risky. Thanks to Nida, DC charters have an advocate who can explain in bankers' lingo that charters are a worthwhile investment. Given the number of states where it is virtually impossible to win such a loan--and the number of charter schools unborn or handicapped as a result--this is an important role to play. (Let us tell you about Ohio sometime!) While it's always good to watch for conflicts of interest, which may or may not exist in Nida's case, sometimes these are trumped by the public benefit of, in this case, an honorable and hard-working fellow who has done great good for D.C.'s charter schools and the tens of thousands of youngsters who now attend them. Consider, for starters, where those kids would otherwise be.

"Public Role, Private Gain," by David S. Fallis and April Witt, Washington Post, December 14, 2008

"Tighter Control of Charters Urged," by Derek Kravitz and April Witt, Washington Post, December 16, 2008

"Pilloried for Volunteering in D.C. Schools," by Robert H. Braunohler, Letter to the Editor, Washington Post, December 17, 2008

Here's a hypothetical that's sure to alarm a San Diego Chargers fan: What if Ryan Leaf had been granted tenure? For those who aren't in the pigskin-know, quarterback Leaf was second pick in the 1998 NFL draft, meaning that he was the crème de la crème of college football players; yet two years later, with a pitiful 15 touchdowns to his name, the Chargers dropped him like a bad habit. The point? It's nigh impossible to tell if a college QB--or, to make Malcolm Gladwell's analogy, a teacher candidate--will make it in the pros. "The school system has a quarterback problem" explains Gladwell, acclaimed New Yorker writer and, most recently, author of Outliers. He's mostly right; we have few tools to tell in advance whether a teacher candidate will prove an effective educator. (Though a brand-new study just added a few tools to our toolbox.) The best teachers, like the best QBs, have a certain je ne sais quoi that can't be measured by paper credentials, examination scores, and past non-teaching achievements. Gladwell's solution is four-fold. First, open the (classroom) door to "anyone with a pulse and a college degree." Then, evaluate teachers only "after they have started their jobs, not before." To attract and keep those that pass muster, up-end the salary structure so that apprentice teachers are paid apprentice salaries and master teachers master salaries. And fourth, dissolve the automatic bestowing of tenure that lets bad apples stay in front of a blackboard. Poor Gladwell; he's about to receive all manner of nasty hate mail. But his ideas--though not new--are mostly right. Now we just need a team willing to give his game plan a try.

"Most Likely to Succeed," by Malcolm Gladwell, The New Yorker, December 15, 2008

As the year of Catholic schools draws to a close, Rev. Donald Wuerl, archbishop of Washington, weighs in on the challenges facing inner-city Catholic schools. His take is noteworthy because only last year he shocked the Catholic community by announcing that seven D.C. parochial schools would be converted to charters. The case he makes in this article is that in D.C., Pittsburgh, and other cities where he's served, he has tried to save as many Catholic schools as possible. But it's a losing battle so long as costs far outstrip what poor families can pay. Ultimately, concludes Wuerl, "The Catholic Church cannot be expected--out of the free-will offerings of the faithful and other donors--to continue to provide such a wide-serving system of successful schools all by itself." He calls for "partnerships" with the business community and the public--in other words, privately or publicly funded scholarship programs. We, too, support these sorts of "partnerships," but we're not quite ready to absolve the Church's leadership of its responsibility here. If Catholics don't stand up for Catholic schools, no one else will either.

"How to Save Catholic Schools," by Donald W. Wuerl, America, December 22, 2008

On Tuesday, President-Elect Obama ended weeks of speculation by selecting Chicago schools CEO Arne Duncan to be his secretary of education. The conventional wisdom is that Duncan is a "consensus" pick, bridging the Democratic Party's major divide on education.

The camps on either side of this divide have been described, variously, as the establishment versus the reformers, incrementalists versus disrupters, or, by some, the true progressives versus closet Republicans. Let us add another pairing: the System Defenders versus the Army of the Potomac.

System Defenders--including the teacher unions, other traditional education groups, and their friends on Capitol Hill--believe that the public school system is basically sound but needs additional resources to be more effective. Their view of the federal role resembles the pre-NCLB version with scads of programs and complexities--albeit a lot more money and a lot less accountability.

Meanwhile, members of the Army of the Potomac--including civil rights groups such as Education Trust, "New Dem" bastions such as Education Sector and the Progressive Policy Institute, and putatively bipartisan initiatives such as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Commission--hold generally sound instincts about reform. They see unions and school boards as barriers to achievement and equity gains; they favor holding schools to account for results; they would reward success; and (up to a point) empower parents. Their Achilles heel is a near-boundless faith in Washington's ability to accomplish these and more whopping improvements in K-12 education. They downplay the unintended consequences caused by NCLB (and other well-intended federal statutes); indeed, most of them would ratchet up Uncle Sam's pressure on states and local schools.

These two camps have been wrangling all year, and it's widely understood that Duncan's job is to forge a truce by finding compromises and commonalities. (To the right of these contending Democratic factions is where many Republicans find themselves, among what we call Local Controllers. They want Uncle Sam to butt out of education policy--but to keep sending money. In the current political environment, however, Duncan and his boss can mostly ignore them--at least ‘til they need sixty Senate votes.)

How can Obama and Duncan find common ground between the System Defenders on the left and the Army of the Potomac in the center? One good way would be turning to Reform Realism, which we introduce today in an "Open Letter" to the President-Elect, Secretary-Designate, and the 111th Congress.

We Reform Realists share some core assumptions with the Army of the Potomac. We embrace standards, assessment, and accountability; we believe that America's achievement gaps are morally unacceptable, socially divisive, and politically unsustainable; and we recognize that for the U.S. to remain secure and prosperous in a dangerous, shrinking and flattening world, our education system must become far more effective.

But as Arne Duncan has learned in Chicago, we also believe that federal action too often yields unintended and undesirable consequences. Uncle Sam would be wise to adopt medicine's maxim of "first do no harm." His education levers are few and none too powerful and, in the real world, he can do little to coerce states and districts to do things they don't want to do or are organizationally incapable of doing--much less to do those things well. School reform is a heavy lift and the application of federal carrots and (less commonly) sticks can only go so far.

We favor a targeted, strategic federal role in K-12 education with Washington sticking to the essential elements that it can do well (and that others do less well)--but leaving the rest to states, communities, educators, and families. In particular, Uncle Sam should:

1. Foster common standards and tests. While asking federal officials themselves to set standards and create tests would be perilous, the President could task the governors with agreeing on what students should know in core subjects at key stages of their schooling. Tests and transparency should follow. (Watch for an announcement tomorrow from the National Governors Association et al.)

 2. Provide flexible dollars targeted at disadvantaged children. Principals and superintendents, facing the sun beaming down on their schools' results, should be free to spend federal dollars as they see fit.

 3. Offer incentives to states and districts to embark upon promising reforms. One way is to enhance the federal Title I payments to jurisdictions that push for such innovations as performance pay for teachers and more quality school choices for families. 

4. Produce high-quality data and solid research on what does and doesn't work. Today, education R & D and statistics is the caboose of federal education policy when it should be the engine.

5. Continue to protect the civil rights of individual students and educators.

Meanwhile, Uncle Sam should eliminate some items from his job description:

1. Oversight of state accountability systems. Once we have national tests that yield reliable, comparable data on pupil and school performance, states should be free--under the watchful eyes of their own citizens--to decide for themselves which schools are succeeding and what to do about those that aren't.

2. Mandated school sanctions. Along with much else, we would eliminate NCLB's school transfer, free tutoring, and restructuring provisions.

3. "Highly qualified teacher" dictates. If reformers want to encourage changes in the human capital pipeline, they should incentivize it, not make rules about it.

Sure, there's more--the Open Letter awaits you--but you can already glimpse the contours of a "Reform Realist" approach that's oriented to systemic change yet humble about Washington's role. Such a strategy could form the basis for a grand compromise. For System Defenders, it would mean an end to federally-mandated sanctions on low-performing schools. For Local Controllers, it would mean a much lighter regulatory load emanating from Washington. And for reformers, including faithful foot soldiers in the Army of the Potomac, it would mean an environment with national standards and tests coupled with far greater transparency, data, and research--all contributing to a healthy environment for reform at the levels of government that actually run public education.

Yes, it's a dramatically different approach than we've grown used to. But it's a terrific fit for Duncan, and maybe for Obama, because it recognizes that Washington's powers in this sphere are limited and places like Chicago have accumulated much relevant experience and wisdom. It points a path out of today's NCLB political thicket. Most importantly, it might actually work.

This piece also appeared today on National Review Online.

Here's an original (and fallacious) thought: when times get rough, absolve children of the need to learn math. That, at least, is the story coming out of Oregon, where budget woes have allegedly forced the state to drop its brand-new graduation requirements in algebra, geometry, and statistics. Set only six months ago, the new bar would turn the already existing high school state math test into a graduation requirement for this year's crop of 9th graders. But since more than half of sophomores typically fail the exam on the first try, the state board of education felt it would be too daunting a challenge to ramp up student performance in time to require total math literacy by 2012. We can't help but wonder if this is a lawsuit-avoidance strategy, as some courts have looked askance at states that set tough graduation expectations but don't provide all manner of extra help to struggling students. Or maybe the economy is just an easy excuse for policymakers to take the easy way out. You know what they say: when the going gets tough, the tough... run in the other direction?

"Oregon to delay math requirement for graduation," by Betsy Hammond, The Oregonian, December 12, 2008

Amanda Datnow, Vicki Park, Brianna Kennedy
Center on Educational Governance
USC Rossier School of Education (commissioned by New Schools Venture Fund)
2008

This study examines the use of data in four high schools, two of them mid-sized district schools and two small charters (all serving poor children), focusing on its use in the classroom and as a tool for teachers. Through interviews and observation, the authors describe how these schools use data to set goals, implement "user-friendly" data systems, align their curriculum and assessment systems, and share information. At one school, for example, an "information platform" provides data not only to teachers and school leaders but to parents as well (although only about their own children). This same school has a second data system, which acts as a "bridge training program" to help students "plan for post secondary options." It includes an individualized electronic portfolio for each student that is monitored by a guidance counselor and can be accessed by school staff. The report also gives brief attention to the use of data for management purposes, namely, how to run schools effectively (as Rick Hess and Jon Fullerton urge in A Byte at the Apple). For data systems really to succeed, the authors argue, a school must create a common "culture" of data use; since culture can vary not only from school to school but also from department to department, it's an acute problem in most high schools. Unfortunately, the report neglects to compare these four data-driven high schools with their data-inept counterparts, a contrast that surely would have been illuminating. It also does not attempt to prove that these practices lead to higher achievement. But surely these four schools are pushing in the right direction and engaging their teachers in thoughtful, analytical approaches to instruction, guided by such data as can be made available. You can find it online here.

George Noell, Bethany Porter, R. Maria Patt, and Amanda Dahir
Louisiana State University
November 2008

This first-rate value-added study helps to fill a gaping hole in teacher quality research, namely, what impact do teacher prep programs (TPP) have on student achievement? The study, commissioned by the Louisiana Board of Regents, examined seven such in Louisiana (the only ones to have met the study criteria, which included having at least 25 graduates, either in their first or second years of teaching). These included five university-based programs and two private providers. Researchers looked at state test achievement data from 2004-2007 for students from 70 districts in grades 4-9. After linking student and teacher data and drawing a comparison group of experienced teachers (who had similar class compositions) to new TPP teachers, the researchers analyzed the data through a rigorous statistical model (hierarchical linear modeling, which acknowledges that students are "nested" in classrooms and classrooms "nested" in schools). The results, which controlled for students' prior achievement and demographics, showed that one alternative provider, the New Teacher Project (TNTP), and two university-based programs, University of Louisiana at Monroe and Northwestern State University, demonstrated consistent positive results for students across four core content areas (math, reading, language arts, and science). The New Teacher Project, in fact, did especially well preparing math teachers; TNTP math teachers outperformed more experienced teachers in this subject area by higher (though not statistically significant) margins. Part of a series on teacher prep in Louisiana, this report makes a strong case for increased accountability of preparation programs. It also makes a strong case for expanding the preparation process beyond the ivied walls. You can find it here.

This comprehensive report neatly summarizes what we know about teacher effectiveness, turnover, distribution, and tenure--and their relation to the overrepresentation of low quality teachers in high poverty schools. Miller and Chait start off by examining the concept of teacher quality, arguing that traditional qualifications and licensure matter far less than value-added measures and experience. While allowing that value-added measures aren't perfect, they note that these are "at least as good as subjective ratings made by principals, at least where the very most effective and very least effective teachers are concerned." A noteworthy point, considering that it's often this same principal subjectivity that tenure advocates cite as justifying tenure in the first place. Next up is teacher turnover. Miller and Chait build the case that not only are high-quality teachers distributed unevenly thanks to poor working conditions, HR practices, and personal preferences, but that teacher turnover patterns exacerbate the disparity. "Effectiveness breeds contentment," they say, i.e. effective teachers are more likely to stay put. But high-poverty schools often have fewer effective teachers to begin with, and the good ones often leave quickly for better schools or other lines of work. Why? In this realm, opposites do not attract. Good teachers want to work alongside other good teachers, and teachers generally seek schools where they share "an ethnic or cultural affinity." Thus, "a vicious cycle" is born wherein bad schools attract fewer effective teachers and then lose them to better schools, making it ever harder to attract the next crop of talent. Ineffective teachers, meanwhile, are passed around like hot potatoes by bad schools, since tenure makes it difficult to fire them. The authors don't engage in an all-out attack on tenure but do urge policymakers to reexamine present policies. "The role that tenure policies play in preserving a skewed distribution of teacher quality cannot be ignored," they conclude. Indeed. The full report is here.