NCLB

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. 

Yesterday’s big news (regarding ObamaCare’s subsidies in states with federal exchanges) is that the judiciary actually expects the executive branch to pay attention to the clear language of laws passed by the legislature. (Update: At least, the D.C. Circuit does.) That this lesson in Civics 101 is news at all tells you something about the disrespect the Obama administration has shown to our Constitutional system. Congress may be semi-paralyzed, but the White House and the federal agencies still aren’t allowed to write the laws themselves.

Yet that’s exactly what Arne Duncan and his Department of Education continue to do when it comes to their interpretation of the waiver authority in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). He has the right to offer greater flexibility to the states when it comes to the law’s “adequate yearly progress” measures and other parts of its accountability system. What he has no constitutional right to do is dream up new mandates out of thin air and make flexibility contingent upon their embrace by supplicant states.

Let’s follow the example of the D.C. Circuit and examine the clear language of the applicable law. Section 9401 of ESEA plainly states that “the Secretary may waive any statutory or regulatory requirement of this Act” (with some noted exceptions). It says that states should describe, in their waiver requests, “How the waiving of…requirements will increase the quality of instruction for students and improve the academic achievement of students.” But it grants no authority for the Secretary to...

The Arctic Vortex edition

Invigorated by the weather, Mike and Dara give cold shoulders to anti-Common Core strategists, California’s constitution, and Randi Weingarten’s “VAM sham.” Amber gets gifted.

Amber's Research Minute

Who Rises to the Top? Early Indicators,” by Harrison J. Kell, David Lubinski, and Camilla P. Benbow, Psychological Science 24 (2013), 2013: 648–59.

Tomorrow, Michael Petrilli will be conducting a live chat with Kathleen Porter-Magee and Matt Chingos of Brookings on lessons learned (or not) since No Child Left Behind was enacted twelve years ago. (Tweet your questions to #NCLBchat.)

Just how long ago was 2002? We’re due for a little perspective.

In 2002…

 

Education reporters couldn’t contact Mike on Twitter or Facebook, but they could e-mail him on his AOL address.

 

Music fans went to Tower Records to buy their favorite CDs and most likely listened to Nickelback’s “How You Remind Me,” Nelly’s “Hot in Herre,” Enimem’s “Lose Yourself,” and Avril Lavigne's “Sk8er Boi.”


 


The tech savvy bought this new gadget called an “iPod.”

The Harry Potter trio still looked like this—and they were only on the second movie.

 

The Rock was still a wrestler.

 

Michelle Kwan was going for gold.

 

Teenagers played Halo. (The Wii was still years away.)

 

Angelina Jolie was married to Billy Bob Thornton,...

Amber loses her marbles

In the first podcast of the year, Mike and Brickman discuss NCLB’s goal of universal proficiency, an error in D.C.’s IMPACT evaluation scores, and the correct pronunciation of Fariña. Amber is no good with marbles—but great at educating us about student mobility.

Amber's Research Minute

Reducing School Mobility: A Randomized Trial of a Relationship-Building Intervention,” by Jeremy E. Fiel, Anna R. Haskins and Ruth N. López Turley, American Educational Research Journal 50 (2013): 1188–1218.

Each State shall establish a timeline for adequate yearly progress. The timeline shall ensure that not later than 12 years after the end of the 2001–2002 school year, all students in each group described in subparagraph (C)(v) will meet or exceed the State’s proficient level of academic achievement

– No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, section 1111(2)(F)

Those of us who fail to heed the lessons of history are destined to repeat it. So let us take this moment, as we enter the New Year, to remember the hubris that caused reformers, policy elites, members of Congress, and the George W. Bush Administration to set the goal of attaining “universal proficiency” in reading and math by 2014.

The next time someone says that we must ensure that all students are college and career ready…remember “universal proficiency by 2014.”

The next time someone says that we must place a highly effective teacher in every classroom…remember “universal proficiency by 2014.”

The next time someone says that we must eradicate childhood poverty...remember “universal proficiency by 2014.”

***

No, we did not achieve universal proficiency by 2014. But that doesn’t mean that students haven’t benefited from the law and its associated reforms. Using results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, let’s look at the NCLB generation—the first group of children who entered school after the law’s enactment. (These students are high school juniors today.)

In 2007, when these kids were fourth graders,

  • Reading scores for the lowest-performing students and for
  • ...

As ESEA waivers change the school-accountability landscape, charter authorizers need to take the opportunity to rethink how we too can measure school progress. Ohio, as part of its Title I waiver, moved to an “A” to “F” rating system for schools, is implementing new standards and assessments, and is providing some flexibility around various reporting requirements. Ohio has also developed a new report card for schools that reports on—among other measures—AP/IB participation rates, student growth in multiple categories, gap closing, honors diplomas, industry credentials, and graduation rates. This revamp at the federal and state levels has, in turn, compelled us at Fordham to reconsider how we structure our own accountability plans for the eleven charter schools we authorize. This tension is captured in our recent report, Remodeled Report Cards, Remaining Challenges.

As per Ohio’s new school report card, the Buckeye State now deploys and reports on a slew of academic measures, including value-added scores for gifted students, students with disabilities, low-income students, and low-performing students. All are part of state accountability. Should they also be part of charter-to-authorizer accountability? Should we hold our charter schools to account for improving their performance on every measure that the state throws into its report card? When it comes to important authorizer decisions about schools—renewing their charters, putting them on probation, or letting them add grades or additional campuses, for example—what matters more: proficiency rates or growth? What about IB and AP passing rates? Graduation rates?

Looking at our authorized...

The Education Department’s flurry of waivers from the No Child Left Behind accountability regime has changed the rules for states and profoundly altered how they identify schools for intervention. This report from the New America Foundation examines data from sixteen of the forty-two states that received waivers. It compares the number of Title I schools—typically poorer schools—that were in “improvement” status (i.e., required intervention) in these states’ last year under NCLB accountability (2011–12) and their first year under ESEA flexibility (2012–13). Across the sixteen states, analysts found that the number of schools in improvement fell by 34 percent. Some states had remarkable drops: Massachusetts, for example, identified 718 schools for improvement under NCLB (which was almost surely too many), while under its waiver it fingered just 162. Interestingly, though, five of the sixteen states bucked the trend, showing increases in the number of schools in improvement. Why? ESEA waivers have changed the method by which states identify their low-performing schools. States have moved from NCLB’s absolute standard (i.e., whether a school makes “Adequate Yearly Progress”) to a relative standard under ESEA flexibility (i.e., whether a school is in the bottom 15 percent of statewide performance). Many have also moved toward considering student growth over time as a significant factor in school ratings. The right approach to accountability—whether at a federal, state, and even at a charter-school-authorizer level—is far from settled. The report’s author writes that “identifying low-performing schools is the easy part, compared to actually improving them.” This...

America’s approach to the education of children with disabilities is antiquated, costly, and ineffective. “Special education” as we know it is broken—and repainting the surface won’t repair it. It cries out for a radical overhaul. Far too many children emerge from our special-ed system without the skills, knowledge, and competencies that they need for a successful life that fully capitalizes on their abilities. This ineffectual system is also very, very expensive. Yet for a host of reasons—inertia, timidity, political gridlock, fear of litigation, fear of interest groups, ignorance, lack of imagination, and so on—neither our education leaders nor our policy...

I’m halfway through an ambitious research project, in which I examine how other countries educate their high-ability kids in the hope that we might pick up tips that would prove useful in improving the woeful state of “gifted education” in the U.S. (In case you’ve forgotten what’s woeful about it, look here, here, and here.)

So far, I’ve checked out eight lands worth taking seriously, all of which have done pretty well over the years on PISA, TIMSS, and similar measures and all of which are fairly termed “competitors” in the planetary economy. (I’m...

Occam’s Razor is the well-known principle that “among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.” Keep that in mind as various pundits hypothesize about why the U.S. scored below the international average in the 2012 PISA assessment in math, and at the average in reading and science, and why we don’t seem to be making any gains over time on these much-watched gauges. Dennis Van Roekel offers the poverty hypothesis as an explanation. I’m not unsympathetic to the argument (though America’s child-poverty rate is not as unusual as many people think), but let’s consider...

For a decade, the nonprofit Institute for Innovation in Public Choice (IIPSC) has helped the cities of New York, Boston, Denver, and New Orleans bring order to the Wild West of school choice, using the one-two punch of economic theory and custom software. To match students with seats in public schools—either district or charter—the IIPSC builds algorithms that employ three kinds of data: the schools that families want their kids to attend, the number of available seats in every grade at each school, and each schools’ admissions rules. Newly flush with a $1.2 million grant from the Dell...

“Fewer, clearer, higher”: These were the words that guided the crafting of the Common Core State Standards. In concise and clear-eyed prose, the Alliance for Excellent Education’s Robert Rothman lays out exactly how the new standards could change current instructional practices—and aims to speak directly to educators, whose efforts will determine whether or not these changes will occur. After providing a brief history of the Common Core (which he covered at length in his previous book), Rothman describes nine facets of the standards that mark a significant change from current practice, four of which pertain to math instruction...

When the Department of Education began offering No Child Left Behind waivers in 2011, states beat down the doors of 400 Maryland Avenue to obtain one. But did allowing states flexibility steer them towards better accountability systems? To answer this question, researchers Morgan Polikoff, Andrew McEachin, Stephani Wrabel, and Matthew Duque painstakingly reviewed and coded each waiver, looking, for instance, at whether they moved accountability systems toward “growth models” and away from “status models.”  Their findings? Let’s let Matthew di Carlo of the Shanker Institute give the sobering news. Out of forty-two states with accepted waiver applications,

17 exclusively

...

Michelle, freshly returned from a trip to Madrid and Prague (with an extra piece of jewelry on her hand), chats with Mike about special education, career and technical education, and pension reform. Amber reviews an obscure cross-sectional Dutch analysis on the multicollinearity inherent in the study of the learning habits of three- to five-year-old children of blacksmiths—just kidding! It’s PISA week, baby.

READ "How School Districts Can Stretch the School Dollar"

Despite some signs of economic recovery, school districts nationwide continue to struggle mightily. Nobody expects economic growth—or education spending—to rebound to 2008 levels over the next five years, and the long-term outlook isn't much brighter.

In short, the "new normal" of tougher budget times is here to stay for American K-12 education. So how can local officials cope?

In my new policy brief, I argue that the current crunch may actually present an opportunity to increase the efficiency and productivity of our education system if decision makers keep a few things in mind:

First and foremost, solving our budget crisis shouldn't come at the expense of children. Nor can if come from teachers' sacrifice alone. Depressing teachers' salaries forever isn't a recipe for recruiting bright young people into education—or retaining the excellent teachers we have. Finally, quick fixes aren't a good answer; we need fundamental changes that enhance productivity.

So how can school districts dramatically increase productivity and stretch the school dollar?

One, we should aim for a leaner, more productive, better paid workforce. Let's ask classroom teachers to take on additional responsibility in return for greater pay, eliminate some ancillary positions, and redesign our approach to special education.

Two, we should pay for productivity. A redesigned compensation system would include a more aggressive salary schedule, more pay for more work and better results, and prioritization of salaries over benefits.

Three, we must integrate technology thoughtfully. Online and "blended" school models are coming to K-12 education. They can be catalysts for greater pupil engagement, individualization, and achievement and, if organized right, they can also be opportunities for cost-cutting.

Many districts continue to face budget challenges of historic proportions. Rather than slashing budgets in ways that erode schooling, let's rethink who we hire, what they do, how we pay them, and how to incorporate technology—that's where the big payoff is.

When the Department of Education began offering No Child Left Behind waivers in 2011, states beat down the doors of 400 Maryland Avenue to obtain one. But did allowing states flexibility steer them towards better accountability systems? To answer this question, researchers Morgan Polikoff, Andrew McEachin, Stephani Wrabel, and Matthew Duque painstakingly reviewed and coded each waiver, looking, for instance, at whether they moved accountability systems toward “growth models” and away from “status models.”  Their findings? Let’s let Matthew di Carlo of the Shanker Institute give the sobering news. Out of forty-two states with accepted waiver applications,

17 exclusively use some version of proficiency or other cutpoint-based rates to identify priority schools. Another 23 employ a composite index consisting of different measures, but in most of these indexes, proficiency still plays the dominant role….So, put simply, the vast majority of states that have had their waiver applications accepted are still relying predominantly or completely on absolute performance, most commonly proficiency rates, to identify low-performing schools.

As Mike explained earlier this week, that’s a problem. And a missed opportunity.

SOURCE: Morgan S. Polikoff et al., “The Waive of the Future? School Accountability in the Waiver Era,” in press at Educational Researcher, 2013.

Pages