The Education Gadfly Weekly

Frederick M. Hess
Show-Me Institute
February 6, 2007

After reviewing the (relatively thin) research on mayoral takeovers of school districts, the prolific Rick Hess emerges with a common-sense conclusion: this reform is not, on its own, enough to cure ailing districts of their maladies. "Mayoral control," he writes, "can do no more than offer a heightened opportunity for effective leadership," noting that "any benefits that inhere in the [mayoral takeover] may well diminish with time." Such cautious warnings are appropriately attached to most reform strategies but especially important for this one. Mayoral control is often accompanied by lots of hype, emotion, and unrealistic expectations--some of that has recently emerged in Washington, D.C., for example. And it's emerged in St. Louis, too. In a section of his paper treating that city as a case study, Hess writes that mayoral control there "would seem a sensible and appropriate step," especially because the city could use some continuity in its leadership. St. Louis has had six superintendents in four years. Check out this paper here.

Julie Kowal, Emily Ayscue Hassel, and Bryan C. Hassel
Center for American Progress
2007

It's standard practice in most enterprises: do high-quality work, or develop expertise in a high-need area, and you'll earn more money. But not in K-12 education, where "single-salary scales" require that schools pay teachers according to their years of experience and degrees earned, not the quality of their performance or the demand for their skills. Yes, you already knew that. But in public charter schools and private schools across the nation, some leaders are experimenting with using pay as a tool to keep and retain the best teachers. This report by Bryan Hassel and his team at Public Impact looks at such experiments and what district schools can learn from them. (See a 2001 Fordham report by Michael Podgursky and Dale Ballou on this topic, here.) Hassel and company find a considerably higher incidence of charters and public schools taking measures such as abandoning "single-pay scales"; offering higher starting salaries to high-needs science, math, and special education teachers; using pay for performance as a carrot and stick to accomplish student learning objectives; and providing "non-financial" rewards such as better working conditions to attract and retain top teachers. None of these alone is revolutionary, says Hassel. The important point is that "School leaders in the charter and private sectors [are] trying to use compensation as a tool to meet their goals." [Italics in original report.] By contrast, "district school principals don't ‘use' compensation in any meaningful sense," says Hassel. If only they could. This short report is worth a read. Find it here.

College Board
February 2007

In most ways, this year's Advanced Placement (AP) report differs little from previous editions; the familiar "Closing Equity Gaps" section shows that the proportion of minority students taking AP exams rose by a sliver, and the College Board again celebrates (without remarking on the self-serving elements of this) the continuing expansion of its tests in U.S. schools. In a third section, however, we find preliminary findings from two intriguing new studies. According to one, students in Texas who took AP exams "earned higher college GPAs and took more credit hours in the subject area of their exam than non-AP students." According to the other, AP students also had a higher four-year college graduation rate than their non-AP peers. Methodological details are sparse on these yet-to-be-released reports, however, making it hard to know whether there is a causal relationship between participation in AP and these welcome outcomes. Find it here.

"If good ideas were all that mattered, everybody who has heard of Jeffrey Sachs would have heard of James Tooley as well--but they aren't, and you almost certainly haven't." So begins Clive Crook's perceptive tribute to Tooley and his groundbreaking research on über-inexpensive private schools in the developing world. (See previous Gadfly coverage here.) Crook explains how Tooley stumbled across well-run for-profit schools in the slums of Hyderabad and then went on a globe trotting quest to understand the phenomenon of cheap but effective private education (see here for more). But alas, Tooley's findings are threatening to the international development ethos of (expensive) government-run education for all. Hence, major aid agencies and governments have treated him like they treat these private schools: they look the other way. Thankfully the Templeton Foundation (the primary benefactor behind his research work) is not so dismissive and is backing a Tooley-led effort to invest $100 million in private schools for the very poor worldwide. Maybe someday public agencies will understand the potential of such private enterprise, too.

"The Ten Cent Solution," by Clive Crook, The Atlantic Monthly, March 2007 (subscription required)

"Academic helps private schools drive for the poor," by Jon Boone, Financial Times, Febraury 15, 2007

The bi-partisan, governor-led, Gates-funded, Aspen-housed Commission on No Child Left Behind has produced a report that should be called No Idea Left Behind. Unfortunately, only a fraction of those ideas are sound.

This sprawling 200-plus-page document, capped with some 75 separate recommendations, adumbrates a solution to almost every problem ailing American education, and heralds several innovative reform ideas. What it doesn't do is sketch a coherent vision for NCLB version 2.0.

First, though, some raisins in this pudding: the Commission outlines an interesting and politically plausible path toward voluntary national standards and tests based on NAEP. It proffers some solid thinking about end-of-high-school academic expectations for students and how these might be married to NCLB. It has some good thoughts on longitudinal data systems. It would give principals the authority to bar weak teachers from transferring into their schools. It would allow states to use growth models in their accountability systems, giving credit to schools whose students are on track to reach proficiency within three years. (This is especially important for charter schools, which often enroll students who start out several years behind.) It seeks to ensure that needy schools get an equitable share of state and district resources before the federal Title I dollars are added on top. (This would give high-poverty schools the buying power to recruit and retain top-notch teachers--especially if they are also allowed to offer incentive pay.)

Not bad. But now take a deep breath. The future the Commission imagines is one in which the federal government has ever more power over the nation's schools; its summary recommendations use the word "require" (usually followed by the word "states") at least 35 times.

This behavior is not unusual in the odd world of blue-ribbon commissions where it's easier to throw in every member's pet idea than to set priorities and be strategic. And the notions this particular commission chose to promote are more innovative than most. Yet its basic approach to NCLB reform ignores the major lesson of the past five years: While it's hard to force recalcitrant states and districts to do things they don't want to do, it's impossible to force them to do those things well (see here). With enough regulations, enforcement actions and threats of monies withheld, Washington can usually coerce states and districts to comply with the letter of the law, but not with its spirit. Yet when it comes to the hard, messy work of improving schools (and teachers, principals, etc.), compliance isn't good enough. What's needed is a new federal-state compact, an approach focused laser-like on results and truly flexible as to the means by which they're produced, one that grapples with America's federalist system rather than pretending it doesn't exist.

The theme to the Commission's proposals, insofar as there is one, is "Do more, and do what Uncle Sam tells you to do." If NCLB 1.0 ran 700 pages, the statutory version of this one would likely take 1,700. It fixes a few flaws, but mostly it piles new mandates on top, more or less the way the last IDEA revision heaped new requirements atop the old rather than solving the problems caused by the old. In its 75 recommendations, alongside the 35 "requires" we counted just six "allows" or "permits." This suggests that the Commission is approximately six times more interested in issuing new federal mandates than providing flexibility to states, districts or schools.

Some proposals are especially worrisome. Consider its well meaning plan to "require all teachers to produce student learning gains and receive positive principal or teacher peer review evaluations to meet the new definition of a Highly Qualified and Effective Teacher (HQET)." Observe here the basic flaw in the Commission's approach: start with a sound instinct (gauging teachers' effectiveness by their impact on pupil achievement). Ignore how little is known for sure about reliable ways of doing this, especially at scale. Then pretend that the U.S. Department of Education is capable of (and has the clout to) shape and micromanage such complicated processes as vetting teacher performance from Washington. Along the way, neglect to undo the mistakes of NCLB, so that instructors must still meet the current law's paperwork-laden, credential-heavy "highly qualified teachers" requirements (which mostly serve to keep talented people out of the classroom) even if they do prove effective at boosting student achievement. The likely result? If past is prologue, Congress and the Education Department will muck up this entire enterprise, setting back a promising idea (evaluating teachers based on their impact on student learning) for a generation.

In its eagerness to advance exciting reform ideas such as this one, the Commission failed to grapple with the true challenges of converting sound impulses into sound implementation. One might laud the Commission's report if it were a reform agenda for a new generation of "education governors" to implement in their states. (This makes sense, considering that two respected former education governors headed the panel.) But setting good federal policy is more than taking great ideas and mandating them from Washington.

Other vexing NCLB problems get neglected. Current law, for example, promises kids stuck in low-performing schools that they can exit for better ones in their districts. Yet this isn't happening because most such districts have few decent schools with empty seats. The answer is to expand supply and create more choices, via more charter schools, letting kids cross district lines, even including private schools. None of these expanded options appears in the report, though a few small tweaks to the "public school choice" program do. (The phrase "private school" never appears and charters get only glancing attention.)

Perhaps feeling obligated by the Rules Governing National Commissions, this one also strays from its mandate, as if to say "We know this other issue is important (or important to someone); we're just not sure what to do about it." So we get a nebulous recommendation "requiring institutions of higher education to set goals for linking their instruction with the needs of schools and the demands new teachers will face in the classroom." And we see "...requiring districts in which more than half of the high schools did not make AYP...to develop and implement comprehensive, district wide high school improvement plans."

The overriding problem, however, isn't any one recommendation--some indeed have merit--but the sum of its parts. NCLB was an historic accomplishment and, for all its warts, has focused Americans on education improvement like nothing since A Nation at Risk. But the Commission is too deferential to NCLB 1.0, as if unwilling or unable to think big about a federal approach to education reform that evolves past NCLB's constraints, an approach with greater ambition (about results) and greater humility (about Uncle Sam's power) at the same time.

Ironically, the Administration that gave birth to NCLB has shown itself more capable of producing a set of bold and workable solutions to the law's problems than a blue-ribbon commission with no pride of authorship. What's especially worrying is that Congress, at least the new Congressional majority, might even go along--the more so since the commission's executive director is now moving to Capitol Hill to work for Chairman George Miller on the law's update.

Some have claimed that NCLB reauthorization is another a chance for bipartisan comity and action. If this report is to serve as the blueprint, we urge Congress to concentrate on immigration reform instead.

A less wonky version of this editorial first appeared in National Review Online.

An expansion of parental options in education is a wonderful thing. But before we break out the champagne (or, for good Mormons, fruit juice) to fete the recent school choice victory in the Beehive State, let us raise a few concerns. Instead of a well-funded program that targets needy kids, Utah's new voucher law is both universal and cheap. Vouchers will range from $500 up to $3,000 per child (the sliding scale is based on socioeconomic status). Meanwhile, the state has only about 100 private schools boasting merely 6,000 vacant seats for half a million eligible students. On top of that, the state is only offering money to parents whose students are not currently enrolled in private schools. So what's the likely outcome? We know from Milwaukee that generous vouchers can produce the sort of demand that catalyzes new supply (see here). We know from the Cleveland experience that chintzy vouchers yield no such thing. The upshot, in Utah, is apt to be a lot of frustrated and perhaps litigious parents and, very likely, needy kids with few if any options. This could easily weaken the fragile political support for the program. (The bill passed by just one vote in the house of this solidly GOP state.) Otherwise, it's all just terrific and you may now return to your regularly scheduled celebration.

"Broad Voucher Plan Is Approved in Utah," Associated Press, February 11, 2007

"Utah's Broad Voucher Plan Would Break New Ground," by Michele McNeil, Education Week, February 9, 2007

Americans love picking winners and losers. Not so in other countries, apparently. According to The Economist, while Americans have few qualms about identifying and nurturing gifted youngsters, people in places such as Japan and Finland believe that "all children are born with the same innate abilities--and should therefore be treated alike." The question is, Are these differences of opinion influenced by culture, or is culture influenced by demography? Or possibly both? In American public schools (see here), teachers are charged not only with holding all kids to high standards and working closely with the academic stragglers, but also with challenging their bright students. This job is made even more difficult by self-proclaimed advocates of "social justice," who rail against grouping students by ability (see here). Maybe they should all move to Helsinki and Kyoto. Life in these United States ain't so simple.

"Bright sparks," The Economist, February 8, 2007 (subscription required)

Julie Kowal, Emily Ayscue Hassel, and Bryan C. Hassel
Center for American Progress
2007

It's standard practice in most enterprises: do high-quality work, or develop expertise in a high-need area, and you'll earn more money. But not in K-12 education, where "single-salary scales" require that schools pay teachers according to their years of experience and degrees earned, not the quality of their performance or the demand for their skills. Yes, you already knew that. But in public charter schools and private schools across the nation, some leaders are experimenting with using pay as a tool to keep and retain the best teachers. This report by Bryan Hassel and his team at Public Impact looks at such experiments and what district schools can learn from them. (See a 2001 Fordham report by Michael Podgursky and Dale Ballou on this topic, here.) Hassel and company find a considerably higher incidence of charters and public schools taking measures such as abandoning "single-pay scales"; offering higher starting salaries to high-needs science, math, and special education teachers; using pay for performance as a carrot and stick to accomplish student learning objectives; and providing "non-financial" rewards such as better working conditions to attract and retain top teachers. None of these alone is revolutionary, says Hassel. The important point is that "School leaders in the charter and private sectors [are] trying to use compensation as a tool to meet their goals." [Italics in original report.] By contrast, "district school principals don't ‘use' compensation in any meaningful sense," says Hassel. If only they could. This short report is worth a read. Find it here.

College Board
February 2007

In most ways, this year's Advanced Placement (AP) report differs little from previous editions; the familiar "Closing Equity Gaps" section shows that the proportion of minority students taking AP exams rose by a sliver, and the College Board again celebrates (without remarking on the self-serving elements of this) the continuing expansion of its tests in U.S. schools. In a third section, however, we find preliminary findings from two intriguing new studies. According to one, students in Texas who took AP exams "earned higher college GPAs and took more credit hours in the subject area of their exam than non-AP students." According to the other, AP students also had a higher four-year college graduation rate than their non-AP peers. Methodological details are sparse on these yet-to-be-released reports, however, making it hard to know whether there is a causal relationship between participation in AP and these welcome outcomes. Find it here.

Frederick M. Hess
Show-Me Institute
February 6, 2007

After reviewing the (relatively thin) research on mayoral takeovers of school districts, the prolific Rick Hess emerges with a common-sense conclusion: this reform is not, on its own, enough to cure ailing districts of their maladies. "Mayoral control," he writes, "can do no more than offer a heightened opportunity for effective leadership," noting that "any benefits that inhere in the [mayoral takeover] may well diminish with time." Such cautious warnings are appropriately attached to most reform strategies but especially important for this one. Mayoral control is often accompanied by lots of hype, emotion, and unrealistic expectations--some of that has recently emerged in Washington, D.C., for example. And it's emerged in St. Louis, too. In a section of his paper treating that city as a case study, Hess writes that mayoral control there "would seem a sensible and appropriate step," especially because the city could use some continuity in its leadership. St. Louis has had six superintendents in four years. Check out this paper here.