Governance

Morgan Polikoff

Election Day is less than a week away. Given the heat around major education policies—especially Common Core and teacher evaluations—there is increased attention to public attitudes about education. A number of polls from major news organizations, education groups, and universities have been commissioned over the past several months, and education pundits and advocates on all sides of current reform debates have endlessly parsed the results.

Unfortunately these pundits are mostly misguided, and public opinion polls on education don’t mean what people think they mean. What follows are three conclusions, all based on data from these various polls, and a discussion of what they ought to mean for education policy and advocacy going forward.

Conclusion 1: Americans’ views on education are incoherent.

The most straightforward conclusion from existing polling data is that Americans’ views are all over the map and, depending on the issue, either nuanced or contradictory. The clearest example of this is on standardized testing. The 2013 Phi Delta Kappa (PDK)/Gallup poll found that just 22 percent of the public thought that standardized tests have helped local public schools. But when asked about specific test-related policies—some of...

Last month, editors of The Youngstown Vindicator, one of Ohio’s most respected newspapers, made an unusual appeal on their op-ed page. They asked the state superintendent of public instruction, Richard Ross, to take over their local school system.

The Youngstown Board of Education had, in their opinion, “failed to provide the needed leadership to prevent the academic meltdown” occurring in their district. They added that Mr. Ross was “overly optimistic” in believing that the community could come together to develop a plan to save the district. Therefore, they pleaded, “[W]e urge state Superintendent Ross to assign the task of restructuring the Youngstown school system to his staff and not wait for community consensus.”

It’s not every day that local citizens ask the state to take charge of educating the children in their community. Such a move illustrates the despair that many Americans feel about their own schools—and their inability to do much to improve them.

That’s why, over three years ago, we at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, along with our friends at the Center for American Progress, began a multi-year initiative designed to draw attention to the elephant in...

What happens when policymakers create statewide school districts to turn around their worst-performing public schools? In Louisiana and Tennessee, Recovery School Districts (RSDs) have made modest-to-strong progress for kids and serve as national models for what the future of education governance might hold.

In the Great Lakes State, the story is more complicated.

In Redefining the School District in Michigan, Nelson Smith, senior advisor to the National Association of Charter School Authorizers, examines the progress of the Education Achievement Authority. Unlike the larger RSDs, Michigan’s is a smaller effort with just fifteen schools, all in Detroit, and a big focus on competency-based learning.

As the policy brief attests, the EAA model—direct-run schools with limited reliance on chartering and a high-tech approach—is far from the catastrophe that some critics claim. Yet its detractors aren’t all wrong. There have been many hurdles. The EAA was rolled out on a tight timeline and a shoestring budget, amid urban decline in Detroit. It would have taken a miracle for this to work out well. (Which is something policymakers might have considered before pursuing this path.) Further, its governance arrangement is a Rube Goldberg invention of epic proportions.

The reality of the EAA is not...

What happens when policymakers create statewide school districts to turn around their worst-performing public schools? In Louisiana and Tennessee, Recovery School Districts (RSDs) have made modest-to-strong progress for kids and serve as national models for what the future of education governance might hold.

In the Great Lakes State, the story is more complicated.

In Redefining the School District in Michigan, Nelson Smith examines the progress of the Education Achievement Authority (EAA). The EAA shares basic features with its brethren in Louisiana and Tennessee in that all three are charged with resuscitating the state’s worst schools within the confines of a separate, autonomous school district.

But unlike the RSD in the Bayou State—which comprises over eighty schools statewide—the EAA is so far a smaller effort; it is responsible for just fifteen schools, all in Detroit, with further expansion stymied. Like Tennessee's Achievement School District (ASD), the EAA was created in response to the Race to the Top competition. Yet it is an interesting hybrid of both existing models, combining the governance reforms of the RSD and ASD with a big push for competency-based learning.

States that want to embrace this approach to school turnarounds need...

KidsOhio.org, a highly respected education-policy group based in Columbus, released a fact sheet today on the schools that are eligible for a “parent trigger” intervention. Twenty schools in Columbus City School District have been identified, on the basis of falling within the bottom 5 percent in the state in student achievement for three consecutive years. In layman’s terms, these schools have enormous and persistent struggles with low student achievement.

The parent-trigger law, only applicable to Columbus district schools, permits four different interventions—from charter-school conversion to contracting with non-district entities to operate the school. The trigger is contingent on 50 percent of the school’s parents or guardians petitioning the school board for the change. As my colleague has pointed out, several issues muddy our judgment on whether parents and policymakers should actually use a trigger-based intervention.

But regardless of whether or not the parent-trigger is used, this group of schools—especially those with lower value-added scores—need to improve significantly. So one of the interesting things on the fact sheet was the hyperlinks to each school’s “improvement plan.”

But these “plans” can only be described as anywhere from meager to pathetic. Here is one example, from Mifflin Middle...

[Editor’s note: This is the sixth in a series of personal reflections on the current state of education reform and contemporary conservatism by Andy Smarick, a Bernard Lee Schwartz senior policy fellow with the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.  The previous posts in this series can be seen hereherehere, here, and here.]

Andy’s odyssey: Part six

The greatest friction between contemporary education reform and conservatism is the former’s obsession with “new” and the latter’s deep skepticism of it.

This conflict has its roots in the very different worldviews of progressives and conservatives. Those on the political right generally seek to preserve, believing that longstanding practices, policies, and institutions possess the wisdom of ages. They have evolved and grown robust. In Yuval Levin’s words, they “developed through years of trial and error and adapted to their circumstances.” They possess stores of social capital that facilitate the healthy functioning of society.

Progressives generally seek to dramatically change, aspiring to uproot society’s injustices and inefficiencies, possessing great faith in our ability to create something new and better...

The post season edition - October 8, 2014

Philly’s budget woes, NCLB waiver revocations, NYC school grades, and postsecondary education for the disadvantaged.

Amber's Research Minute

"Is It Worth It? Postsecondary Education and Labor Market Outcomes for the Disadvantaged," by Benjamin Backes, Harry J. Holzer, and Erin Dunlop Velez, CALDER (September 2014)

Transcript

Mike:              Hello, this is your host Mike Petrilli of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Here at The Education Gadfly show, and online at edexcellence.net. Now please join me welcoming my co-host. The Kansas City Royals of education policy, Robert Pondiscio.

Robert:           That could be bad news for us. Do you know why?

Mike:              Why is that?

Robert:           That means this could be a really long podcast.

Mike:              A really long day. I always love going into extra innings, all the time. But they win.

Robert:           They do. We'll try to get this done in nine.

Mike:              They are spunky, I like it. Interesting, the American League, both sweeps. As we do this podcast right now, the National League series each 2-1. That may be different by the time folks listen. What does this mean? It just means in my view that the National League is better.

Robert:           More competitive balance, perhaps?

Mike:              Maybe, that's it.

Robert:           It's hard to root against those Royals.

Mike:              Oh, but I will because I'm rooting for my Cardinals. So Go Cards. It's an exciting time.

                        You know? It's hard Robert, that every year, this time of year, us Cardinals fans have the Cardinals in the playoffs. I mean it's ...

Robert:           Oh yes.

Mike:              I feel bad for the other cities in the country sometimes.

Robert:           It stinks to be you.

Mike:              It's tough.

Robert:           I'm a Mets fan. I feel your pain.

Mike:              What is it that there's the whole meme on the internet about how people hate the St. Louis Cardinals now. What is that?

Robert:          

Robert:           Do you know why? Because the Yankees didn’t make the playoffs. If it weren't for the Yankees, the Cardinals would be the Yankees. They're the second most successful franchise in baseball.

Mike:              Oh my God, but we're not the Yankees. They don’t have the money of the Yankees. They certainly aren't in New York.

Robert:           Rooting for the Yankees is like rooting for Microsoft.

Mike:              Exactly. Okay. Let's get started with, "Pardon the Gadfly." Intern Ellen, take it away.

Ellen:              As a way to combat years of budget woes, Philadelphia freed up money this week by cancelling its teacher's contract. Is it fair to blame the state or the teachers for the district's near bankruptcy?

Mike:              This is the school reform commission. This is the commission appointed by what the state, and I believe, the Mayor had a role in this.

Robert:           Back in '98, or some such?

Mike:              It's been around a long time. They basically have said, "Look, we are tired of being on the brink of bankruptcy as we are every year recently. We are going to cancel this teacher contract because it's costing us too much money"

Mike:              "We're going to make teachers do things like pay some of the co-pays and premiums for their health insurance."

Robert:           Right. That's one way to rein in runaway health costs, I guess. I'm not sure this gets them away from the brink of bankruptcy. At least not for very long. It saved, what? 44 or 54 million dollars, I think?

Mike:              Here's the question Robert. The unions want to say that the state has been under funding Philadelphia schools, causing this crisis. You look at the numbers, I think the last numbers I saw was something like $12,000 per pupil. This is not exactly bottom basement spending here. Maybe not as high as some cities, but certainly not the lowest. What's your take on the situation in Philadelphia? Who's right here? Who's fault is it that every year they have a funding crisis?

Robert:           Wow, I'm not really sure. Because this feels to me like legal terra incognito. I'm not aware. Are you? Has this ever been done before? Just unilaterally cancelling a contract?

Mike:              The contract? I was asking a different question. Now they have, I believe they have the authority in the reform law to go ahead and cancel that contract.

Robert:           I'm not sure they do.

Mike:              Well, we'll find out. The bigger question is this, whose fault is it? When you look at the contract, and you look at the situation. Philly, you say, "Okay, they're spending a fair amount of money. Where is the money going?" Well guess what? They have a huge pension problem right?

Robert:           Yep.

Mike:              A huge hole in their pension system, so a huge amount of that money is going to shore up the pensions. Then you also look at the teacher pay, and the teacher benefits. You say for example, "Philadelphia teachers aren't paying much for their health care costs."  It seems reasonable today that "You know what? Like everybody else, you should have to pay some of these premiums."

Robert:           Yes, but they've been negotiating this for quite a while, right? They could not get the teachers to agree to this.

Mike:              Right.

Robert:           This feels to me like a little bit of an exercise in frustration. Maybe bad politics? I'm not sure. You’re point's well taken.

Mike:              You're such a softy. Robert, what are you? Come on! You're going to take the teacher's side on this one? Come on!

Robert:           It's complicated. We're going to say that a lot today, Mike It's complicated.

Mike:              Look, I understand. We want to pay our teachers well. They should have predictable salaries and benefits. We should also not be giving public employees a deal that nobody else gets. Which is basically saying., "We're going to have free health care. We're going to have incentives for you to limit your health care spending." This is a huge issue.

Robert:           I agree, but there's two sets of signatures on that contract.

Mike:              Exactly, and so this one side of this contract is saying, "You know what? We're getting a bad deal. Forget about it. My bad."

Robert:           "We changed our mind."

Mike:              "We changed our mind." Okay, topic number two.

Ellen:              Washington State has lost its NCLB waiver because its legislator refuses to tie teacher evaluations to student scores. Mike, You disagree with waiver revocations, and some are saying that you want to give states a free pass. Is that true?

Mike:              It is not true!

Robert:           Explain yourself Mr. Pachelli, I thought you quoted in the New York Times on this.

Mike:              I did. Look, I think Artie Duncan is way out on a limb here. I would love for Washington State to sue over this. I think they've got quite a case because where in the No Child Left Behind Act, does it say that if you want flexibility from the accountability provisions, you have to adopt a teacher evaluation system?

                        The words teacher evaluation are not in the No Child Left Behind Act. Because back in 2001, nobody was thinking about this. Right?

Robert:           Sure.

Mike:              So Arnie Duncan dreams up this new mandate, attaches it to the waivers. I don’t think there's any legal basis for that whatsoever. I also think it's terrible policy. To have states going thought this process of developing these teacher evaluations because they want to get this federal waiver. Not because they think it's a good idea. It's very predictable, what happens? Many states are doing it poorly.

                        That is causing a backlash to the idea of teacher evaluations. Which the idea is an okay idea. It's also causing a backlash to things like Common Core.

Robert:           Sure.

Mike:              I don’t see what Arnie Duncan is doing here. I think he's totally on the wrong side of this. I don’t want to give states a pass, Robert, or Ellen. They should still have to follow the law in terms of accountability. Arnie Duncan can say how much flexibility they're allowed to have around the accountability provisions of the law. That's fine. He is not allowed to dream up new mandates.

Robert:           Yes, I agree. On the other hand, I shouldn't say on the other hand. This is a little bit bizarre to me that Duncan is saying on the one hand that Washington broke its promise, and has to pay a price. Just a few weeks ago he was saying that the testing is sucking the life out of the room of schools.

Mike:              Yes.

Robert:           So there's very much of a mixed message coming from the administration on this.

Mike:              Robert, it's Orwellian.

Robert:           It kind of is.

Mike:              Here's people  who say, "We are out there saying the old No Child Left Behind system is broken. It's identifying now way too many schools in Washington State as failing." They don’t like the tutoring provisions. They're saying, "But we're going to make you do all of that stuff that we know isn’t working. Is arguably bad for kids. Because a bunch of state politicians wouldn’t do what we wanted them to do. “Talk about "Friendly fire." Explain that to teachers. Explain that to kids.

Robert:           Yes. It feels to me like Duncan is saying, "Look, I don't make the laws. I just enforce the laws." But wait a minute. You do make the laws in this instance.

Mike:              You do make the laws.

Robert:           It's kind of bizarre. What a mess. On the other hand, I feel like we're going to have this ...

Mike:              How many hands do you have?

Robert:           I have a lot of hands today. At least three. Then I'm going to borrow one of Ellen's.

                        I feel like we really need to settle once and for all the role of testing in Ed policy. Because we're just going to have these battles over and over again.

                        This is just another example of this complicated relationship that we have with testing. Does it do what we want? Do we need accountability? Is this the kind of accountability, once you start looking at testing that works for some things, not for others? It just gets so muddy.

                        I just wish once and for all as a field, we could settle out our relationship with testing.

Mike:              I like that pun, "Muddy."

Robert:           We were just talking about Washington State.

Mike:              Oh very good.

Robert:           That's a good one.

Mike:              Okay, topic number three, Ellen. Ellen, who now only has one hand. Very strange.

Robert:           Don’t try to clap with that one.

Mike:              All right.

Ellen:              New York City Schools will no longer receive letter grades after the city moved to a gentler system that's more description, than assessment. Does it matter?

Mike:              So Robert, this is the kinder gentler approach of Carmen Farina and Mayor Bill de Blasio?  Is this okay? Do we care?

Robert:           We do care. But first, let's all join hands and sing a little bit of "Kumbaya", here, shall we? This is another one of those issues ...

Mike:              Why are we singing "Kumbaya?"

Robert:           Well, because we're replacing the hard and fast A through F grades, with a more,   call it what you will, "fuzzy", take on accountability and grading schools.

                        I have a complicated relationship with this, too. On the one hand, I want to spur greater parental involvement in schools, and the A through F grades are very helpful in that regard. It's clear, simple, easy to understand. On the other hand, I did it again. On the other hand, it's reductive, right?

Mike:              You really need to be that Indian God. What's his name?

Robert:           With all the arms. That's exactly right.

Mike:              Or an octopus.

Robert:           New York City, where I live and have taught, has a particularly buisenteen

                        way of evaluating schools. The thing that I've never quite liked, which you could argue is condescending even. Is they evaluate schools compared to their peer group. That makes perfect sense, on the one hand.

                        On the other hand, you could have an A school, that you're basically saying that it's an A school for poor kids.

Mike:              Right.

Robert:           As opposed to an A school on the Upper East Side, or Tribeca.

Mike:              Here's the fundamental confusion, I think. What is the purpose of these school grades?

Robert:           Right.

Mike:              If you're trying to provide feedback to a school so that it can improve itself, then a very comprehensive and somewhat complicated scoring system makes sense.

Robert:           Sure.

Mike:              You want to give them a lot of information back that the teacher's and maybe a parents council can sit around and say, "Okay, what can we do better next year" Very different than something that the typical parent can use.

Robert:           Right.

Mike:              Especially in this situation where they're choosing a school. Neroff Kings  made this point this week about in New Orleans, it's very important to have letter grades because it really is a Choice System. When you put the letter grades out there as a part of the application form, the enrollment form ...

Robert:           It changes behavior.

Mike:              It changes behavior, and parents will gravitate towards the better schools. And that makes sense. Part of this is about, "Look does Carmen Farina believe in a Choice System, or not?" If your assumption is that most kids are going to go to their neighborhood school and the goal then is to give feedback to those schools, so that they can have self-improvement, fine.

                        If you actually want transparency so parents can make choices, you've got to make a system that is transparent. That means having, I think, the letter grade is the most easily understood way, or something that parents can get their head around that basically says, "This school is quite good, and this school sucks."

Robert:           Right. Two things. One, it does end up when you’re looking at schools in affluent neighborhoods, you’re differentiating between good, better, and best. In low income neighborhoods, you're differentiating between bad, worse, and, "Oh my God."

Mike:              No, no. Hold on Robert. Not if you're looking at growth. If you’re looking at proficiency rates, yes.

Robert:           Here we go again.

Mike:              If you're looking at growth, there are some of those poorer schools that are doing great, and can use pro-growth.

Robert:           You know what I always say, "Growth matters most, until it doesn't."

Mike:              Ugh.

Robert:           Until they get out into the real world and they're not interested in how much you've grown. They're interested in how much you know.

Mike:              Well, but if we're judging schools, not individual kids, then growth is what matters. Especially at the elementary level.

Robert:           Fair enough. Let me make one other point, which I don’t think is getting enough play in this A through F thing in New York City. Carmen Farina, in her speech, rolling out the new system talked about what she wanted the system to encourage. She said, "A supportive environment that recognizes that social and emotional growth is as important as academic growth."

                        Like, woe, wait a minute. It's important. Is it as important? That's the problem with this report card. It can start to impose, does this sound familiar? Her values, Bill de Blasio's values on what you look for in schools, and grade them accordingly.

                        If she's looking for, and these are the things she says they're looking for, "Rigorous instruction." Is my definition the same as yours Chancellor? She’s looking for "Collaborative teachers and a culture of trust." Whatever that means.

                        I'm not sure that's what I necessarily what I want. I'm not saying those things are not important. But is that the thing that you're going to keep score by? Color me skeptical.

Mike:              I will color you skeptical. Is that an official crayon color? Can I find it in a box?

Robert:           It's the 65th color.

Mike:              Ah, excellent. Okay, that's all the time we've got for "Pardon the Gadfly". Now it's time for everyone's favorite. "Amber's Research Minute."  Welcome back to the show, Amber.

Amber:           Thank you. Mike.

Mike:              Have you been watching the baseball?

Amber:           Of course. I was at the game Saturday night. I left in the 15th inning.

Mike:              Oh, you're kidding me? You were there?

Amber:           I'm like, "I can’t deal with it anymore." 15th inning, and then we lost. It was nuts.

Mike:              I know. Were you freezing, too?

Amber:           Freezing.

Mike:              Yeah?

Amber:           Freezing, but man it was a great game. But I cannot believe we did not hang on to it. We had that one stinking run for inning after inning, after inning, after inning.

Mike:              Yes.

Amber:           Then, boom, we lost it. It was aggravating. But , we came back, woo-hoo. Good game. 

Mike:              Yes. So Amber, a National's fan. I love it.

Amber:           I am a National's fan.

Mike:              Woo. Okay. Well, what have you got for us this week?

Amber:           I have a new NBER paper called, "Is it worth it? Post-secondary education and labor market outcomes for the disadvantaged." You're going to like this one, Mike.

Mike:              Oh, I do like it. By the way, speaking of being a National's fan. Amber's also an MBER fan.

Amber:           I am. I always kind of gravitate to these things.

Mike:              You need a mascot of some sort. Don’t you think? Let me talk to Carolyn Hotsbie about that.

Amber:           Anyhoo, A List examined outcomes for disadvantaged kids. Post-secondary outcomes, like enrolling, and completing a degree. The Vocational certificate, and salary data after high school for 5 years after the student leaves his last educational institution. It's one of these rare longitudinal studies that we hardly ever get.

                        Al right. They used administrative data in Florida for two cohorts of students who number over 210,000. They graduated between 200 and 2002, so they were able to observe them for ten to twelve years.

Mike:              Wow.

Amber:           Post-secondary and labor market outcomes. Then a ton of data. Secondary, post-secondary school, earning, courses taken in high school, grades they got on those courses, GPA. The college data includes credit earned, major, degree attainment. I mean it was like a major data study.

Mike:              Yes.

Amber:           The control for demographics and prior achievement in high school, which you've got to do that. Two key results. Number one, gaps in secondary school achievement likely accounts for a large portion of the differences in post-secondary attainment and labor market outcomes between disadvantaged kids and those who aren't. Which is kind of ...

Mike:              It is a preparation gap.

Amber:           Yes, that's right.

Mike:              Basically, it kids who are not well prepared for college.

Amber:           Then it carries through. Right.

Mike:              Right, sure.

Amber:           Number two. Earnings for disadvantaged kids are hampered by low completion rates in post-secondary programs. Poor college performance, and not, this is the most interesting part to me. Not selecting high earning fields. Which we've seen this before.

                        Here's the part you're going to like. I'm sorry I'm plucking you! They found that Vocational certificates and Associates Degrees in health, transportation, construction, manufacturing and security, are relatively high paying fields for disadvantaged students. As well as though who score in the bottom half of all high school achievers. Particularly young African American men, who see the greatest compensation in these fields.

Mike:              Interesting.

Amber:           Financial returns in the humanities are relatively low compared to virtually all other fields.

Mike:              Shocking.

Amber:           We've heard this before.

Mike:              Yes.

Amber:           Specifically, those earning Vocational certificates in some of these areas, earn 30% more than high school grads. Those with Associates Degrees, roughly 35-40% more.

                        Finally, analysts recommend that public institutions do a better job partnering with industry. We've heard that awhile. And generating better career pathways, talked about that for a while. And that more high quality apprenticeships be made available for disadvantaged kids.

Mike:              I love it, love it, love it!

Amber:           I thought you would.

Robert:           Yes. How about counseling high school students to look at some of these fields?

Amber:           Yes. That's a [crosstalk 00:16:00].

Mike:              Oh, but Robert? That starts to sounds an awful lot like tracking.

Robert:           Ugh, of course it does.

Mike:              Are you going to start saying we're going to send the poor minority kids into those security fields, and the rich kids get to study the humanities?

Robert:           I don’t know. I'm remembering my father wanting me to take a television repair course, which he talked to me about on my way to college.

Amber:           Wow. Isn’t that something.

Mike:              Yeah.

Robert:           He wanted me to have a skill to fall back on.

Mike:              This is the heart of the issue. Now here you are Robert, well known supportive of Core Knowledge, which is heavy on humanities.

Robert:           Sure.

Mike:              So how do you square this? Are you a believer that all kids should go get that broad, rich, deep, large education K-12?

Robert:           Well sure, because it's not vocational. I mean that really pays benefits with language proficiency. That's one of the great misconceptions about a so-called Liberal Arts education. It doesn’t prepare you to major in Art History. It prepares you to have a big vocabulary, and to work well in whatever field you work in.

Mike:              All right. Would you say then that they need that in K-12, or let's say how about K-8? Then they can start doing something that's explicitly technical, vocational, in high school.

Robert:           Yes, you really want to have the tracking argument, don’t you?

Mike:              Yes I do!

Amber:           You say you're going to do both. Mike, you’re going to say one thing…

Mike:              Exactly. All right, you're going to do both. You've got to start, let's face it, at some point in high school, I think probably 9th or 10th grade.

Robert:           Sure.

Mike:              If you start getting kids on a more technical track, that is okay.

Robert:           I do think it's okay, as long as you're building a good solid common foundation. In K-5, or K-8.

Mike:              There it is.

Amber:           Right.

Amber:           By that age, kids are growing up faster than they used to. By 10th grade, you know doggone well whether you want to go to college or not. You've got some idea of what you’re interested in.

Mike:              Yeah.

Amber:           I don’t think it's completely unfair to start having those conversations with kids.

Robert:           Kids are going to have those thoughts regardless.

Amber:           Yes.

Mike:              Were they able to look at any of the common poverty traps? Like, "The reason that the kids were not completing, is because they have early pregnancy, or incarceration, or substance abuse?"

Amber:           No, they did not. But you know we're going to be looking at that question.

Mike:              I love it. I love it. By the way, these kinds of data that we can link all together is what makes a lot of people very nervous.

Amber:           Very nervous.

Mike:              They didn’t ask the kids, "Do you own or have a gun in the home?" Did they?

Amber:           No, they did not.

Mike:              They did not! Listen to that people. We don’t ask those questions to people. Okay? But it is very helpful to be able to do these studies where we find out ...

Robert:           You’re a brave man Mr. Pachelli.

Mike:              What happens from education to labor market. This is super important.

Robert:           It sure is.

Mike:              I'd also be curious to know about family formation stuff.

Amber:           Yes.

Mike:              Were these kids who ended up getting good jobs, were they then more likely to get married, etc.

Amber:           Yes.

Mike:              This is the kind of stuff that is very powerful.

Amber:           Many more questions to be asking, but yeah, we've got to keep doing these studies.

Robert:           This was a good study.

Mike:              You know what Amber? It was great.

Amber:           NBER.

Mike:              I love NBER almost as much as the Cardinals.

Amber:           I could have done this, or yet another Common Core survey. I mean, come on.

Mike:              Thanks you. All right guys. That’s all the time we've got for this week. Until next week ...

Robert:           I'm Robert Pondiscio.

Mike:  And I'm Mike Petrilli of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, signing off. 

[Editor’s note: This is the fifth in a series of personal reflections on the current state of education reform and contemporary conservatism by Andy Smarick, a Bernard Lee Schwartz senior policy fellow with the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.  The previous posts in this series can be seen herehere, here, and here.]

Andy’s odyssey: Part five

I’m worried that when the history of today’s era of education reform is written, the most damning critique will be that its progressive leaders had little understanding of social capital.

Social capital describes the “benefits that flow from the trust, reciprocity, information, and cooperation associated with social networks.” When people are connected, they (and even those outside the network) gain, thanks to sharing, interdependence, joint learning, collective action, solidarity, and more.

Key to the development of social capital is longevity. Trust and relationships take time to develop. They mature, evolve, and strengthen over time.

As I wrote in the last installment, progressives’ bent for change is invaluable when longstanding institutions are destructive. But it can also do immeasurable harm when it undermines old valuable institutions, which can serve as wellsprings and keepers of social capital.

It is striking...

I’m excited about a recent shift in the reform conversation. After years of focusing on Common Core, common assessments, and teacher evaluation, many of those interested in large-scale K–12 improvements are turning their attention back to state accountability systems.

The Obama administration’s ESEA waiver policy had the potential to spur imaginative state-level thinking. But thanks to a combination of NCLB’s legal strictures, the administration’s fixation on particular policy conditions, and state leaders who just wanted to get out from under AYP ASAP, the new state systems look a whole lot like the old ones. (In fairness, some states have smartly experimented with A–F systems and “super subgroups.”)

Despite this arrested development, I think two important events provide the outlines for a new approach to state-level accountability.

First, under the auspices of CRPE and TBFI, a group of experienced policymakers and thought leaders have penned an “Open Letter on Accountability To State Superintendents and Governors.” It explains and defends K–12 accountability, concedes problems with current systems, and offers eight smart principles for next-generation systems. The group doesn’t get into specifics; instead, it hopes to get people thinking about what’s possible (though within certain guidelines).

This...

There’s a lot of talk about disruptive innovation these days. It seems hardly a month goes by that we don’t see some sort of exciting new innovation that changes an industry. Sometimes it happens over and over again in the same space. First we had paper maps that were replaced by custom driving directions we could print out from MapQuest (remember those?). Then came some very expensive GPS systems mounted in cars. Those, in turn, were replaced by much cheaper portable GPS systems from companies like Garmin, which were basically made obsolete by free map applications from Apple, Google, and others in nearly all cell phones sold today. All this in a handful of years! Fortunately, paper mapmakers weren’t ultra-powerful on Capitol Hill, or we might still be sitting in our cars trying to figure out how the heck you’re supposed to fold those things.

Unfortunately, the traditional public education system does have an army of apologists, lobbyists and piles of cash to protect itself and resist change.  Public unions are the best funded of these anti-change agents, but they are by no means the only players to resist everything from accountability to online learning to charter schools—none...

Pages