The Education Gadfly Weekly

National Council on Teacher Quality
2008

This second installment of NCTQ's annual analysis of states' teacher policies, unlike the comprehensive 2007 inaugural edition, focuses on a narrower set of critical questions: what can state policymakers do to identify and retain effective new teachers, and how can they make it easier for districts to remove ineffective instructors from the classroom? Drawing from a rich data set, the document reveals just how far most states are from sensible teacher staffing policies. Some of its more telling findings: just two states require any evidence of teacher effectiveness to be considered in tenure decisions; thirty-six do not require teacher evaluations to include any objective measure of student learning (despite NCTQ's generous definition of objective measures, which includes student work and student quizzes); and only five allow new teachers to be compensated for relevant prior work experience (unlike virtually every other field!). Surprisingly, however, more than half the states give districts full authority over teacher pay rates--meaning they could choose to buck the traditional step-and-lane salary scale if they wanted to. Of course they don't. In the end, South Carolina came out on top with a B+ for its teacher retention polices (there were no As) while most states earned Ds and Fs. NCTQ President Kate Walsh says the report "offers practical, rather than pie-in-the-sky, solutions for improving teacher quality." Abolishing tenure may be too much to hope for but even Ted Strickland, Governor of teacher-union-loving Ohio, seems to think the time required for a tenure decision could be tripled. Changing compensation systems should be easier still. You can find this excellent report here and a fun and interactive website here.

ACT, Inc.
2009

This report from ACT (makers of the college entrance exam) seeks to explain the factors most related to college and career readiness. In other words, which variables make the biggest difference in whether high school seniors are ready to tackle credit-bearing college courses or land a decent-pay job? The study's authors considered a number of potential indicators including family background, students' coursework, high school GPAs and more. What mattered most, it turns out, is what students know and can do by the end of middle school (as conveniently measured by an eighth-grade assessment also offered by ACT). The study then examines student data from 24 middle schools and identifies factors related to strong eighth grade achievement, like disciplined study skills, good behavior in school, and positive relationships with school personnel. It's an easy read with an appendix offering all the technical detail that a card-carrying policy wonk could want. Find it here.

Anthony G. Picciano and Jeff Seaman
Sloan Consortium
January 2009

Trends in online learning are the focus of this report, the follow-up to a similar 2007 study. Since Sloan is "dedicated to helping institutions and individual educators improve the quality, scale, and breadth of online education," readers won't be surprised to find that online learning is up, with 75 percent of districts reporting one or more students enrolled in a fully online or blended course. The authors estimate that more than a million students are engaged in such courses, a 47 percent increase from two years ago. Methodologists may quibble with this estimate--the survey's response rate raises questions--but the numbers seem plausible. There's also plenty of information here about who is providing online learning, and which types of students are availing themselves of it. Check it out here.

Every day, sometimes several times a day, the media report more rounds of layoffs at major American firms, from Microsoft to Caterpillar to Fidelity to Macy's and beyond. But the private sector is not the only one hemorrhaging jobs in the current recession; school districts from coast to coast are letting go of employees, too. Indeed, saving "literally hundreds of thousands of teaching jobs" is one of Secretary of Education Arne Duncan's primary arguments in support of the massive federal "stimulus" bill, which would provide over 100 billion dollars to local schools.

Duncan is right to worry about stemming teacher layoffs, but there's more to this problem than simple job-loss numbers. That's because, as currently structured in most places--and locked into collective bargaining contracts, board policy, sometimes state law--such lay-offs can undermine not just the size but also the quality of the teacher workforce, both immediately and well into the future. That's because of which teachers are laid off and what signals this process sends to other educators and future candidates.

When a school district announces layoffs, often called a reduction in force (RIF), you know which teachers will get the axe: the newbies. It's a vivid illustration of the "last-hired, first-fired" rule, often found in the public sector but rarely in the private. It's designed to be objective, and administrators feel comfortable defending it. Its effect, however, is to protect seniority. In public education, in particular, it also avoids running afoul of tenure laws for, typically, none of the teachers selected for separation will have been in the district long enough to earn that coveted employment status. Unfortunately, seniority and tenure have almost nothing to do with quality teaching--or with matching good teachers with needy kids, ensuring that critical subjects are adequately staffed, etc. In general, teacher contracts or state law simply requires that the number of years employed by that district determine who will stay and who will be let go. Teacher quality--the ability to foster successful learning in children--almost never enters the picture.

Considering that teacher quality is the single most important school-based determinant of students' academic progress, it's essential to understand how layoffs affect it. In the short run, it may be a wash, since teachers with just one or two years of experience tend to be less effective than those with a few more years in the classroom. (Most research indicates that this "experience factor" tapers off within five years.) Dismissing novice teachers may actually improve the average level of skill of a district's teachers.

But sacking teachers from this group may also have a negative effect on average teacher quality, since some of the most energetic and positive teachers are those with little experience. For example, Teach For America corps members, who are carefully selected for their academic strength and their commitment to working in high-poverty schools, have been shown to be at least as effective as more experienced teachers. And what about teachers who are new to their current district but have strong track records elsewhere? They are just as vulnerable to being laid off as hapless rookies.

Thus, the immediate effect of a RIF on the overall quality of a district's teaching force depends on the prevalence of particularly capable novices and highly effective veterans who lack tenure. But that's just the beginning. This method of laying teachers off also powerfully signals those considering a stint in public education that, when push comes to shove, what really matters is seniority. This signal, invariably amplified by local media interest in layoff stories, makes it harder for districts to attract the kind of teachers they will need in the future--energetic, committed, and effective teachers who want to be rewarded for efficacy rather than the duration of their service.

Imaginative districts and determined leaders can find ways to maintain a high-quality teaching staff even when layoffs are unavoidable. Early retirement incentives, for example, can encourage tiring veteran teachers to make space for energetic newcomers. But seniority has to be addressed, too, whether by modifying the teacher contract and/or altering state law. When teachers must be let go, districts need the freedom, the wisdom, and the will to lay off the least effective. Mountains of student achievement data--much of it attributable to NCLB-induced annual testing--can be linked to teachers and can inform these decisions. Such data didn't exist during the last big wave of teacher layoffs during the recession of the early 1990s. But now that they are available, efforts to bring these data to bear on questions about teacher quality should be redoubled, especially when it comes to identifying chronically ineffective teachers.

Reliance on "last hired, first fired" rules highlights the inadequacies of the current human resource systems in public education and the need to rethink the teacher tenure process. Districts should work to ensure that only effective teachers get tenure and that effective younger instructors aren't sacrificed because of antiquated seniority rules. Today's economic cloud could even turn out to have a silver educational lining if states and districts use the current crisis to revamp their HR systems and ground rules. Just about everyone knows that would make for better education. The present confluence of budget stringency on the one hand and the press for stronger school performance on the other hand may be just what's needed to effect these important reforms. 

Miller and Chait are Senior Education Policy Analysts at the Center for American Progress.

Are Florida teachers channeling Wall Street arrogance? Unlike others who've been hit by the recessionary storm, teachers in the sprawling Miami-Dade district apparently believe themselves immune from the effects of economic decline. Maintaining current salary levels--or even their jobs--isn't enough; they're demanding their contractually negotiated pay increases, never mind that the district is facing a massive budget deficit and lacks the necessary $48 million dollars. The promised raises date back to 2006, when, of course, the district presumed it would be able to afford them. Alas, no more. Thankfully, saner heads--like that of school board member Agustin Barrera--might prevail. His opposition is simple: "I don't think we should be putting employees on the street to give additional benefits to other employees." These teachers should take a page from their Montgomery County, Maryland brethren, who have agreed to give up a 5 percent pay increase. Let's hope the Miami-Dade board, which will vote on the issue next week, agrees.

"Magistrate backs Miami-Dade decision to deny teacher raises," by Kathleen McGrory, Miami Herald, January 30, 2009

Ohio Governor Ted Strickland's hot-off-the-presses education-reform plan is nothing if not audacious. Gutsy, even, in its way, and wider-ranging than most people expected, it tackles a multitude of topics--sometimes in incompatible and contradictory ways--and picks up on dozens of ideas, some of them sound. It is also sure to be expensive. (You can also find out more by reading Strickland's State of the State address.) 

Strickland's better ideas include moving away from the current statewide high-school graduation test toward the ACT and some combination of end-of-course exams; a near-to-breathtaking plan to delay teacher-tenure decisions from 3 to 9 years; lengthening the school year; making funding more transparent; and encouraging innovations such as STEM programs and "early college" academies.

He certainly deserves credit for raising education high on Ohio's policy agenda and showing some guts in making at least a handful of proposals that appall his teacher union pals. Still, his plan raises several serious concerns that legislators and others should ponder long and hard--and that have implications far beyond the Buckeye State.

First, the so-called "Evidence Based Model" that is central to Strickland's school funding plan--and has been spreading like kudzu across the land--is based on questionable evidence and dubious theory, derived from the work of two school finance "experts" who have grown prosperous by helping litigators talk judges into ordering more money for public education. They claim to present with scientific certainty exactly what needs to be done to raise every child in a state to academic proficiency and how much this will cost.

Unfortunately, other experts--with equal or stronger credentials--say that such models rest on sand. Stanford economist Eric Hanushek, for example, writes that they're "not just inaccurate" but "generally unscientific." In fact, "They do not provide reliable and unbiased estimates of the necessary costs. In a variety of cases, they cannot be replicated by others. And they obfuscate the fact that they are unlikely to provide a path to the desired outcome results." Furthermore, he warns, "Pity the poor states that actually implement [such plans]. They are sure to be disappointed by the results, and most taxpayers (those who do not work for the schools) will be noticeably poorer."

Second, the governor's proposals to "improve" charter school quality will likely make most charter schools worse--or force them to close (which might be his intent). No doubt, Ohio's charter policies need work. The state suffers from far too many low performers and not nearly enough strong ones. While purporting to cure this patient, however, Strickland would actually deprive it of vital limbs and organs. His budget would worsen the funding inequities between charter and district schools. He would add to the already-heavy regulatory burden on all charters, good, bad and indifferent. And in barring "for profit" school operators, he again fails to distinguish between shady managers of squalid schools and outstanding providers of quality education. For example, Dayton's top-performing elementary school in 2008--the Pathway School of Discovery--is a charter operated by National Heritage Academies. Does it make sense to toss its 570 children out of a school rated "effective" by the Ohio Department of Education (the only elementary school in Dayton so designated) solely because it is operated by a profit-seeking firm?

That Governor Strickland is serious about investing in Ohio's ebbing supply of human capital, while also expecting more from schools, teachers and children, is a fine thing. But his good ideas are matched if not outnumbered by flabby notions, shaky evidence and sometimes downright harmful nostrums. The former deserve bipartisan support. The latter demand close scrutiny and serious reconsideration.

Unlike other, balmier breezes, the "wind of change...blowing through the Fayetteville School District" is reason to batten down the shutters. Why? Because this Arkansas-bound mistral is wafting the latest edu-fad, "21st century skills." After purchasing 2,000 copies of Tony Wagner's The Global Achievement Gap, which offers anecdotal (and unconvincing) evidence that acquiring such skills will allow the U.S. to catch up to its competitors, the district is swooning over how to use his dubious counsel to guide Fayetteville's schools. We've already explained why this particular trend is worth resisting but please listen to two Arkansan voices (those of Jay Greene and Sandra Stotsky) that do so once again. Stotsky explains Wagner's piffle thusly: "[he] dismisses measureable academic content while embracing buzzwords like 'adaptability' and 'curiosity,' which no one could possibly be against, but also which no one could possible measure. Do we really care if our students are curious and adaptable if they cannot read and write their own names?" Hear, hear. Sounds like Fayetteville Schools ought to listen up and reevaluate before they get blown away by this latest gust of nonsense. 

"Schools don't need snake oil," by Jay Greene, Northwest Arkansas Morning News, February 3, 2009

"The global achievement muddle," by Sandra Stotsky, Northwest Arkansas Times, January 27, 2009 

"School Board Faces Major Issues," by Rose Ann Pearce, The Morning News, February 1, 2009

"Community Talks New Curriculum For 21st Century," by Rose Ann Pearce, The Morning News, February 2, 2009

Too taxing to decide who deserves a raise and who doesn't? Here's a simple if inane solution: remunerate everyone. That's the thinking, at least, in Minnesota, where the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune found that in 22 districts, only 27 of roughly 4,200 eligible teachers were left empty-handed under the state's Q Comp merit pay program. Yes, folks, that's a whopping 99 percent payout rate. Today, forty-four districts and 28 charter schools are enrolled in Q Comp--a local-option state program. Since each district negotiates the specifics with the local union, the result is a mishmash of policies where hoop-jumping--like continuing education credits and being evaluated by colleagues--can reap more rewards than boosting student achievement. Perhaps more telling is that districts seem to like the program, not because it offers them a way to reward highly effective staff, but because they can score $260 extra per pupil from the state in a year of tight budgets. Former Eden Prairie, MN teacher Steve Watson offers this trenchant elucidation: "They found out the teachers would buy into it if they just paid them off." We have applauded Governor Pawlenty's efforts to implement a merit pay system; problem is the Minnesota system as implemented rewards practically everything but merit.

"Is it 'merit pay' if nearly all teachers get it?," by Emily Johns, Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune, February 1, 2009

Bad news from the Bay State. Just as we were ready to give Patrick the benefit of the doubt over his plan to raise charter school caps in low performing districts, Massachusetts State Secretary of Education Paul Reville starts reviling the state's sturdy and sensible U.S. and World History standards. The state has been debating how and when to update its standards and assessments since last year, when Reville commissioned a taskforce on 21st century "skills." The taskforce's recommendations, which were published last November, were vacuous and vague--and will eviscerate some of the best state standards in the country if adopted. Unfortunately, Reville hasn't changed his mind one bit. "It's a new era," he cooed at a recent meeting with higher education leaders. According to reports, Reville vigorously agreed with audience members who called the state history standards embarrassing and "the 'cold war school' of history from the 50s and 60s." News flash for Reville: there's nothing embarrassing about standards rooted in facts. We can only hope Massachusetts doesn't sacrifice a top-notch standards, accountability, and testing system at the 21st century skills altar.

"Education secretary discusses regionalization," by Steve Urbon, South Coast Today, February 4, 2009

Known for his brawn, the Terminator may soon be known for his flexibility, too. He still can't touch his toes (so far as we know) but he is trying to give districts more wiggle-room when it comes to school spending. Governor Schwarzenegger's new budget proposal would allow them to use state class-size reduction funds however they see fit--and for that he's taking "Red Heat" from teachers' unions and others. Said State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, "It's a sad day for all of California...We know class-size reduction works." Actually, we don't. Many studies (like this one, for example) show that lowering class size is a far-from-effective reform. In fact, capping class size means districts have to hire more warm bodies to fill new classrooms--and quantity over quality is simply a "Raw Deal" when it comes to teacher effectiveness. District leaders need all possible flexibility in deploying their dwindling funds in the most efficacious ways--a lesson more states should find worth learning.

"Bid for flexibility in class-size reduction funds criticized," by Seema Mehta, Los Angeles Times, February 2, 2009

Anthony G. Picciano and Jeff Seaman
Sloan Consortium
January 2009

Trends in online learning are the focus of this report, the follow-up to a similar 2007 study. Since Sloan is "dedicated to helping institutions and individual educators improve the quality, scale, and breadth of online education," readers won't be surprised to find that online learning is up, with 75 percent of districts reporting one or more students enrolled in a fully online or blended course. The authors estimate that more than a million students are engaged in such courses, a 47 percent increase from two years ago. Methodologists may quibble with this estimate--the survey's response rate raises questions--but the numbers seem plausible. There's also plenty of information here about who is providing online learning, and which types of students are availing themselves of it. Check it out here.

National Council on Teacher Quality
2008

This second installment of NCTQ's annual analysis of states' teacher policies, unlike the comprehensive 2007 inaugural edition, focuses on a narrower set of critical questions: what can state policymakers do to identify and retain effective new teachers, and how can they make it easier for districts to remove ineffective instructors from the classroom? Drawing from a rich data set, the document reveals just how far most states are from sensible teacher staffing policies. Some of its more telling findings: just two states require any evidence of teacher effectiveness to be considered in tenure decisions; thirty-six do not require teacher evaluations to include any objective measure of student learning (despite NCTQ's generous definition of objective measures, which includes student work and student quizzes); and only five allow new teachers to be compensated for relevant prior work experience (unlike virtually every other field!). Surprisingly, however, more than half the states give districts full authority over teacher pay rates--meaning they could choose to buck the traditional step-and-lane salary scale if they wanted to. Of course they don't. In the end, South Carolina came out on top with a B+ for its teacher retention polices (there were no As) while most states earned Ds and Fs. NCTQ President Kate Walsh says the report "offers practical, rather than pie-in-the-sky, solutions for improving teacher quality." Abolishing tenure may be too much to hope for but even Ted Strickland, Governor of teacher-union-loving Ohio, seems to think the time required for a tenure decision could be tripled. Changing compensation systems should be easier still. You can find this excellent report here and a fun and interactive website here.

ACT, Inc.
2009

This report from ACT (makers of the college entrance exam) seeks to explain the factors most related to college and career readiness. In other words, which variables make the biggest difference in whether high school seniors are ready to tackle credit-bearing college courses or land a decent-pay job? The study's authors considered a number of potential indicators including family background, students' coursework, high school GPAs and more. What mattered most, it turns out, is what students know and can do by the end of middle school (as conveniently measured by an eighth-grade assessment also offered by ACT). The study then examines student data from 24 middle schools and identifies factors related to strong eighth grade achievement, like disciplined study skills, good behavior in school, and positive relationships with school personnel. It's an easy read with an appendix offering all the technical detail that a card-carrying policy wonk could want. Find it here.