The Education Gadfly Weekly

Paul T. Hill
Hoover Institution Press
2010

Why haven’t school choice programs—especially charters and vouchers—been the smashing success many of us expected? In this new book (which was the subject, along with Paul Peterson’s new work on choice, of a recent Fordham event), Paul Hill explains. For the most part, it was a matter of misplaced assumptions, namely that choice would stimulate a “virtuous cycle” of school improvement. Think flow chart: Schools of choice create competition; parents vote with their feet and enroll their students in such schools; public schools feel pressure to improve; entrepreneurs create more new schools based on rising demand; new schools pay “premiums” for better teachers; and so on. But there are numerous realities, explains Hill, which throw a wrench in this circuit, none of which should come as a surprise. Most notably, education systems are “entrenched” in procedure, compliance, and employee protection, and often debilitated by nonsensical state and district laws and policies. But all is not lost, says Hill, and we certainly shouldn’t give up on school choice. He provides several recommendations to fix these problems, including “re-missioning” education toward continuous improvement (via performance-based “portfolio-run” districts, a topic Hill has engaged with before). We agree; school choice is worth the wait—and the fight. You can buy the book here.

Education Week
April 2010

For an intro to cyberschooling – whether full-time, online delivery of classes or “blended models” (the combination of online classes with traditional face-to-face instruction) –check out this special report from Education Week. The report highlights the increase of national online learning opportunities for students and explains their benefits: they create more course options for students, expand individualized delivery methods, and result in potential efficiencies for schools and districts that may translate to lower operating costs.

In addition to the “101” material, there are some key components associated with online delivery of material worth noting. First and foremost, there’s a human component that is critical: a mentor or guide for students. This mentor doesn’t necessarily need to be a content expert (as there are teachers for that), but the mentor does need to oversee coursework, troubleshoot problems, and be available for regular communication with student.

Second, course content should be packaged in chunks of time conducive to learning from a computer or other appropriate device (i.e., don’t give a kid two back-to-back three-hour blocks of reading and math online – you’ll lose them). Third, online learning programs should be conscious of providing sufficient interactive opportunities for students, regardless of whether the course is in a fixed medium (e.g., a recorded webinar) or live.

There are some interesting policy nuggets in the report, too – principally that China’s K-12 material has gone digital, as has Mexico’s, and that Turkey now educates 15 million students annually online. Meanwhile, the U.S. (sigh) is still grappling with state caps on enrollment and backward funding mechanisms such as state appropriations (as opposed to funding that follows the child), neither of which make much sense given today’s economic context of shrinking resources and budget cuts. The report is available here.

National Center for Education Statistics
Sarah Grady, Stacey Bielick, and Susan Aud
April 2010

This statistical analysis from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) breaks down trends in enrollment in all major venues for K-12 education: public and private, charter and district, plus homeschooling. The report also examines characteristics of students as well as parents’ satisfaction with and involvement in such schools.

The study is an update to previous NCES reports on school choice and at 77 pages contains more data than any review can thoroughly describe. But, a few trends during this 14-year span stand out:

• The percentage of students in grades 1-12 attending assigned public schools decreased from 80 percent to 73 percent. In effect, more students and their families are availing themselves of school choice options.
• In 2007, just two percent of students in grades 1-12 were enrolled in charter schools. A much higher percentage of charter students hailed from cities (64 percent) when compared to students in other public schools (30 percent).
• Public school options account for most of the increase in the use of school choice. In 1993, 11 percent of students chose to enroll in a public school other than their assigned neighborhood school. By 2007, that number grew to 16 percent. In the meantime, the number of students in both private religious and private non-religious schools grew by one percent each (from eight to nine percent, and two to three percent, respectively).

Thus, the expansion of school choice has occurred mostly in public schools. But while NCES’s trend data is very useful for broad comparisons, the report doesn’t drill down to indicate whether public school choice trends reflect intra-district or inter-district choice, or charter schools. Still, NCES provides a thorough outline of school choice trends, and illuminates that “choice” doesn’t undermine public schools. Ohio would benefit greatly by collecting and tracking such robust data on school choice that could highlight similar trends. Read the report here.

Should Ohioans worry that recent cuts to early childhood education might widen the preschool access gap between Ohio and other states? Yes, according to a new report by the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) at Rutgers University. But state leaders can remedy this problem by enacting smart changes to early learning programs in the next budget. 

The 2009 State Preschool Yearbook, the seventh annual survey of state-funded prekindergarten programs across the country, gives Ohio less than impressive scores, compared to peer states, and follows an October 2009 PreK Now report that lambasted the Buckeye State for cutting preschool programming by $11.5 million.

According to NIEER’s yearbook, Ohio ranks 30^th among states in the number of four-year-olds enrolled in public preschool, with eight percent of them in state-funded programs, and 10^th for three-year-olds, with five percent of them attending public preschool. The programs themselves don’t get high marks for quality -- Ohio’s two primary preschool programs met only three and five (out of 10) quality standards. Nonetheless, we are spending a lot on preschool -- Ohio’s state spending per child of $6,904 far exceeded the national average of $4,143.

Although diminished access to early learning opportunities surely warrants concern (the 2009 PreK Now report estimated 12,000 fewer low-income children would be served as a result of the cuts), the NIEER ranking alone isn’t cause for alarm. Ohio ranks lower than many states for four-year-old access in large part because other states have mandated universal preschool programs. Among three-year-olds, Ohio ranks better than the majority of its peers. A more important inquiry is to what extent do Ohio’s low-income three- and four-year-olds have access to preschool?

NIEER laments that this year’s survey “confirmed [their] worries about the effects of the recession on state pre-k.” NIEER says Gov. Strickland’s decision during the last budget cycle to discontinue the Early Learning Initiative (ELI, the Ohio preschool program ranking highest according to NIEER’s indicators, and that aligns preschool with K-12 state academic standards) was unfortunate, and calls for restoring this program in the next state budget.

Still, reports such as these should be read carefully. Preschool advocates often evaluate and rank states based on universal access, but observers must keep two things in mind. First, early learning opportunities hold the most promise for low-income children. Second, Ohio (along with most states) is facing further budget cuts and must make extraordinarily difficult spending trade-offs (evidenced by the fact that Gov. Strickland, an early childhood advocate, cut ELI).

Looking ahead to the next budget, Ohio would do well to reexamine the evidence-based model’s all-day kindergarten mandate, reevaluate preschool cuts, and consider restoring targeted funding for both preschool and all-day K for the kids who would benefit from it the most.

The D.C. Public Schools and the Washington Teachers Union just reached an agreement on a new teacher contract. Reformers are calling it the boldest of its kind. Hailed by New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein as a “game-changer,” the contract would install a voluntary merit-pay component (with salaries some call “eye-popping” – $140,000 or more a year), remove forced hiring and transfer of teachers and require “mutual consent” hiring, and reduce seniority’s role in layoff decisions to just 10 percent of the equation. DC’s effort to fundamentally re-work its teacher contract could not be timelier. As districts and schools across the land are being forced to lay off thousands of teachers, many are rethinking the cost effectiveness (and common sense) of existing teacher policies.

In fact, a broad coalition of national education groups – Children’s Defense Fund, Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights, Democrats for Education Reform, Education Equality Project, Education Reform Now, The Education Trust, The Mind Trust, National Council on Teacher Quality, and The New Teacher Project – recently came together in support of eliminating “last hired, first fired” policies. The coalition, which represents a broad swath of the political spectrum, argues that the proposed $23 billion federal “Keep Our Educators Working Act of 2010” (which would help stave off the tidal wave of teacher layoffs) should be paired with a requirement that states and districts put an end to seniority-based teacher layoffs.

Such a change would be an important step toward freeing up struggling school districts to manage their fiscal nightmares with the least negative impact on student learning. As pink slips paper the state (Cleveland says it will need to lay off 545 teachers; Columbus, 164; Parma, 50; Dayton, 46; Youngstown, 29; and the list goes on), superintendents ought to have the ability to keep their best teachers, regardless of whether they are outstanding novice educators or high-performing veterans.

Meanwhile, as Cincinnati and other Ohio districts embark on contract negotiations, DC’s contract should be seen as a common sense model for replication. It unties hiring, professional development, compensation, and antiquated regulations and replaces them with systems that are aligned with the district’s new evaluation system (IMPACT), all of which are rooted in performance-based incentives. Specifically:

• Teachers opting into the performance-pay program can earn up to $146,000, nearly twice as much as the current ceiling. The additional compensation would be linked to improved student achievement or teaching in high-need schools or in high-demand subjects. Performance bonuses would also include school-wide team awards.
• DC would join the ranks of Chicago and New York in implementing “mutual consent” hiring, which would eliminate forced transfers and hiring, and require dismissed teachers to interview for new positions, rather than automatically fill open slots.
• The contract wouldn’t abolish tenure, but teacher layoffs would be based more on performance than seniority. The district would use a “performance-based rubric,” of which seniority would make up just 10 percent.

DC’s new teacher contract is in stark contrast to what is, or rather isn’t, happening in Ohio. Take for example the recent announcement from the Ohio Department of Education about what the state’s Race to the Top application does not do. It does not:

• Implement nor require a statewide or local system of merit pay for teachers.
• End tenure.
• Mandate involuntary transfers.
• Override local decisions about compensation.

DC’s bold plan faces challenges. It is intertwined with a new teacher evaluation system that took much energy and time to develop (and which figures in student performance data, a point of contention in Ohio). Further, there are serious questions about whether the political will to carry out the contract would dissolve if Mayor Fenty loses re-election and if Chancellor Michelle Rhee were to get the boot.

All politics aside, the contract is revolutionary because it fundamentally re-alters the way the district recruits, compensates, and retains its most effective teachers. Such reforms are also needed in Ohio, and the sooner the better.

Students from Phoenix Community Learning Center, one of six Fordham-sponsored charter schools, beat out students from eight other Cincinnati-area schools in a local robot competition in late February.

Phoenix’s team included six students who worked for months on Buddy 2.0, a one-and-a-half pound Lego robot that stands on two feet and rolls like a tank. Buddy uses a sensor to detect colors, which represent different environmental hazards that he is designed to clean up.

Starting in November, two students worked to build and program the robot, while the others shared the responsibilities of building a floor for Buddy to roll on and writing a report on environmental hazards. Students stayed after school three days each week to work on their robot, but as February drew closer they started to spend every day after school working on the project.

In March, the students made an oral presentation of their report and let Buddy do his stuff for a six-judge panel at the competition, which was hosted by the College of Applied Sciences at the University of Cincinnati.

For their work, the students won three first-place trophies (Total Points-Winner, Best Robot, and Creativity) and two second place trophies (Research Display and Oral Presentation).

“I think that it didn’t really hit home until we actually came back and could take a breath,” said Mrs. Sushumna Means, a teacher who served as an advisor to the students on the project.

Ms. Jenna Amatull , a science teacher who also advised the students, indicated that the experience was valuable from more than just an academic perspective.

“They’ve said several times they were working with students they wouldn’t typically interact with,” Ms. Amatulli said. “They really came together as a team. We had an incident with a student who was having behavior issues in class. The team really rallied around him. The girls were crying by the end of it.”

Since the competition, the students and their teachers attended an American Society for Quality dinner, and presented Buddy at Duke Energy’s tech show on May 4.

National Center for Education Statistics
Sarah Grady, Stacey Bielick, and Susan Aud
April 2010

This statistical analysis from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) breaks down trends in enrollment in all major venues for K-12 education: public and private, charter and district, plus homeschooling. The report also examines characteristics of students as well as parents’ satisfaction with and involvement in such schools.

The study is an update to previous NCES reports on school choice and at 77 pages contains more data than any review can thoroughly describe. But, a few trends during this 14-year span stand out:

• The percentage of students in grades 1-12 attending assigned public schools decreased from 80 percent to 73 percent. In effect, more students and their families are availing themselves of school choice options.
• In 2007, just two percent of students in grades 1-12 were enrolled in charter schools. A much higher percentage of charter students hailed from cities (64 percent) when compared to students in other public schools (30 percent).
• Public school options account for most of the increase in the use of school choice. In 1993, 11 percent of students chose to enroll in a public school other than their assigned neighborhood school. By 2007, that number grew to 16 percent. In the meantime, the number of students in both private religious and private non-religious schools grew by one percent each (from eight to nine percent, and two to three percent, respectively).

Thus, the expansion of school choice has occurred mostly in public schools. But while NCES’s trend data is very useful for broad comparisons, the report doesn’t drill down to indicate whether public school choice trends reflect intra-district or inter-district choice, or charter schools. Still, NCES provides a thorough outline of school choice trends, and illuminates that “choice” doesn’t undermine public schools. Ohio would benefit greatly by collecting and tracking such robust data on school choice that could highlight similar trends. Read the report here.

Education Week
April 2010

For an intro to cyberschooling – whether full-time, online delivery of classes or “blended models” (the combination of online classes with traditional face-to-face instruction) –check out this special report from Education Week. The report highlights the increase of national online learning opportunities for students and explains their benefits: they create more course options for students, expand individualized delivery methods, and result in potential efficiencies for schools and districts that may translate to lower operating costs.

In addition to the “101” material, there are some key components associated with online delivery of material worth noting. First and foremost, there’s a human component that is critical: a mentor or guide for students. This mentor doesn’t necessarily need to be a content expert (as there are teachers for that), but the mentor does need to oversee coursework, troubleshoot problems, and be available for regular communication with student.

Second, course content should be packaged in chunks of time conducive to learning from a computer or other appropriate device (i.e., don’t give a kid two back-to-back three-hour blocks of reading and math online – you’ll lose them). Third, online learning programs should be conscious of providing sufficient interactive opportunities for students, regardless of whether the course is in a fixed medium (e.g., a recorded webinar) or live.

There are some interesting policy nuggets in the report, too – principally that China’s K-12 material has gone digital, as has Mexico’s, and that Turkey now educates 15 million students annually online. Meanwhile, the U.S. (sigh) is still grappling with state caps on enrollment and backward funding mechanisms such as state appropriations (as opposed to funding that follows the child), neither of which make much sense given today’s economic context of shrinking resources and budget cuts. The report is available here.

Paul T. Hill
Hoover Institution Press
2010

Why haven’t school choice programs—especially charters and vouchers—been the smashing success many of us expected? In this new book (which was the subject, along with Paul Peterson’s new work on choice, of a recent Fordham event), Paul Hill explains. For the most part, it was a matter of misplaced assumptions, namely that choice would stimulate a “virtuous cycle” of school improvement. Think flow chart: Schools of choice create competition; parents vote with their feet and enroll their students in such schools; public schools feel pressure to improve; entrepreneurs create more new schools based on rising demand; new schools pay “premiums” for better teachers; and so on. But there are numerous realities, explains Hill, which throw a wrench in this circuit, none of which should come as a surprise. Most notably, education systems are “entrenched” in procedure, compliance, and employee protection, and often debilitated by nonsensical state and district laws and policies. But all is not lost, says Hill, and we certainly shouldn’t give up on school choice. He provides several recommendations to fix these problems, including “re-missioning” education toward continuous improvement (via performance-based “portfolio-run” districts, a topic Hill has engaged with before). We agree; school choice is worth the wait—and the fight. You can buy the book here.