The Education Gadfly Weekly: Our schools have lost their sense of purpose
The Education Gadfly Weekly: Our schools have lost their sense of purpose
Education may now be a “cross-partisan” endeavor
In a recent Aspen Institute paper, the authors introduce the notion of “cross-partisanship”—two or more sides agreeing on the same policy outcome for disparate reasons—as a modern alternative to bipartisanship, wherein both sides concede something. They argue that adopting this new approach in education policy may be imperative for success—not just for legislative wins, but for the long-term well-being and prosperity of our children and communities.
Education may now be a “cross-partisan” endeavor
How the pandemic affected global education: Insights from PISA
Our schools have lost their sense of purpose
The value of a college degree: Evidence and trends from 2009–2021
#913: Advancing cross-partisan education policies, with Lorén Cox and Karen Nussle
Cheers and Jeers: March 28, 2024
What we're reading this week: March 28, 2024
How the pandemic affected global education: Insights from PISA
Our schools have lost their sense of purpose
The value of a college degree: Evidence and trends from 2009–2021
#913: Advancing cross-partisan education policies, with Lorén Cox and Karen Nussle
Cheers and Jeers: March 28, 2024
What we're reading this week: March 28, 2024
Education may now be a “cross-partisan” endeavor
Some consider Checker Finn to be the Obi-Wan Kenobi of education reform. He is the master, wise one, and main influencer of thought for so many who populate education reform efforts today (and one of these authors in particular). Recently in these pages, the wise one authored a piece entitled “Education reform is a bipartisan endeavor.” While it’s uncomfortable, this time we find ourselves in slight disagreement with Finn.
We say “slight” disagreement because we wholeheartedly agree with the view that education should be an American value—not owned by one party or another—and that we must have a generally agreed upon philosophy regarding the purpose of our education system. As a country, we need a rich vision for public education that ensures every young person develops the knowledge, skills, and character that enable their individual success and our success as a society.
Where we possibly disagree is whether “bipartisanship” is a goal in and of itself when attempting education policy. It is true that if bipartisanship is possible, whether in education policy or any issue, it is the preferred result. All policy is better when it is developed gaining a broad base of support across the political spectrum. And we believe this was the process our founders envisioned—a give-and-take negotiation, often involving compromise by all parties, that ultimately achieves the support of a broad majority. A process that always attempts to maximize the number of Americans who benefit from any particular policy implementation, and that contemplates those who may not benefit and those who might even be harmed.
Historically, bipartisanship was highly regarded, symbolizing a commendable compromise and a collective victory—particularly in the education sector. We still view it as desirable. We understand, however, that the current political climate often interprets bipartisanship as weakness, a capitulation to opposing views. As a result, the political incentives for bipartisanship have been largely lost—and bipartisanship is now elusive, if not impossible. While we remain hopeful for a shift back to a more positive perception of bipartisan efforts, the present reality of the political landscape necessitates a different approach.
In a recent paper for the Aspen Institute, we introduce the notion of “cross-partisanship” as a potential strategy for today’s education advocates to consider.
In our analysis of state policy, we observed many initiatives that received support from a wide range of political actors. But these were not necessarily “bipartisan” efforts in the traditional sense. Instead, they could be termed “cross-partisan,” which we intend to denote modern political collaboration—policy success in spite of wide political backing, not because of it.
Advocates aiming for cross-partisan support will need to strategize on engaging policymakers by appealing to their primary political interests—and their core base of political support.
Factors in building cross-partisan support
As part of a larger body of work focused on rebuilding a broad base of support in education, we conducted focus groups and individual interviews with education leaders and looked across the state legislative landscape over the past couple of years. We found several themes and shared factors among successful policy initiatives. They didn’t guarantee success in all cases, but they seemed necessary, if not sufficient: Without them, efforts were much less likely to succeed. Following is a brief synopsis of the five factors that we identified (which we unpack more thoroughly in the aforementioned Aspen paper).
- Problems and solutions are easy to communicate. Policy initiatives must be easy to communicate if they’re to result in a broad base of support. The success of policies like those grounded in the science of reading demonstrates the power of simplicity and relatability in communication.
- Policy changes are responsive to local context. It has been famously said that all politics is local. Policy solutions tailored to specific local problems can often transcend political polarization.
- Political cover is present. When a change in policy is new, or potentially controversial, it helps for there to be “political cover”—support by a higher political power, voting bloc, or higher order policy imperative (an existing law or an unexpected event that demands action, such as a pandemic or recession).
- Both sides get their win. It’s important to acknowledge that, in politics, everyone is trying to achieve a win for their side. A key to cross-partisan success is finding a path for each side to claim that win.
- Strategic use of media. It is undeniable that the media are powerful in shaping public policy. Some might argue that it is more useful in impeding progress rather than accelerating it. A fair point. But its potential as a force of good should not be underestimated.
When one or more of these factors is present—and of course the more the better—it allows for success within the political incentive structure we currently have, not the one we wish we had.
These instances of support exemplify what we now describe as “cross-partisan,” denoting support that transcends traditional partisan boundaries but emerges from people with differing political philosophies. The hallmark of cross-partisanship is that the “why” animating the support can be vastly different for various members of the coalition, which is to say they’re not pursuing identical interests but the initiative serves multiple interests.
Adopting a cross-partisan approach may be the new strategic imperative for success in education policy—imperative not just for a legislative win, but for the long-term well-being and prosperity of our children and communities. Examples from various states illustrate that, despite deep-seated political divides, it is possible to make meaningful improvements in education that “cross over” the political divide.
Different political actors may need to take different roads to the ultimate destination of a common-ground solution. Let’s not get hung up on the road traveled and focus instead on the destination reached. The success of all of our students, and our country, depends on it.
How the pandemic affected global education: Insights from PISA
The closure of schools in response to the seismic disruptions of the Covid-19 pandemic has left an indelible mark on education worldwide. As nations grappled with closures lasting varying lengths of time, the implications for student learning became increasingly evident. Recent data from the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) have shed some light on the extent of the damage and its potential economic repercussions.
As is well known, PISA is an international measure of the academic achievements of fifteen-year-old students that serves as a critical barometer of global education standards. Its latest results (from 2022), incorporating data from both pre- and post-Covid assessment rounds, provide a comprehensive view of the pandemic’s still-evolving impact on academic achievement.
The key finding is stark. Between 2018 and 2022, there was an average decline in scores of 14 percent of a standard deviation, equivalent to seven months of learning. And that’s after controlling for pre-Covid trends! Because of the wide reach of the PISA assessments—175 million students in seventy-two countries—this illustrates the global nature of the pandemic’s negative effect on academic achievement. These results go beyond raw scores, as they have been revised using data over time and after taking into account deviations from the long-run mean. They are also consistent with many national studies, international comparisons, and other reviews of actual learning losses.
The extent of these losses in each country varied significantly depending on how long their schools were closed (see figure 1). Countries where schools were closed for shorter periods experienced relatively minor losses, whereas losses of up to a year’s worth of learning were observed in those countries with the longest closures. Immigrant students faced bigger setbacks, except in countries with longer closures where the learning loss for students with an immigrant background was similar to that of native-born students.
Figure 1. Learning loss depending on the length of school closure
Note: Losses shown are percent of a standard deviation (SD); in this case, 20 points are 0.20 SD; about 0.25 SDs are equal to a year's worth of learning.
The PISA data also show differences in learning losses among students with different levels of performance (see figure 2). In countries with school closures of average duration—about 5.5 months—learning losses were similar for low-, average-, and high-achieving students. However, in countries with shorter closures, the best students experienced minimal setbacks, with the learning losses mostly being incurred by average- and low-achieving students. In countries with longer closures, the largest learning losses were experienced by high-achieving students.
While this seems counter-intuitive, differences in learning loss at different achievement levels in countries with short and long closures can be associated with differences in the overall achievement in these countries. Countries with the longest closures are also countries with the lowest achievement in PISA, while countries at the top of the PISA rankings closed schools for much shorter periods, on average. Thus, we see larger losses among the lowest-achieving students in countries with short closures and high achievement, similar losses across the achievement distribution in countries with the average length of closures, and larger losses among the highest achieving students in countries with very long closures and low achievement. This is what is shown in Figure 2. Nevertheless, losses are greater for the lowest achievers.
Figure 2. Learning loss estimates depending on student achievement quantiles and the length of closures
These results are consistent with a recent review of grade four student reading scores in the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). PIRLS is conducted by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). It measures reading proficiency of nine- to ten-year-olds. It has been conducted every five years since 2001. We used comparable data from fifty-five countries or regions from assessment rounds in 2001, 2006, 2011, 2016, and 2021. Our sample includes more than 1 million students participating in all rounds. The review showed that, in countries with relatively longer school closures, actual achievement in those schools that closed for more than eight weeks was lower than expected by 34 points, equivalent to more than a year of schooling. Learning losses were greater for those from schools closed for longer than average, while lower-achieving students experienced much larger educational losses than their peers.
Countries with no school closures achieved the same results as might have been expected based on their previous levels of achievement. This was the case in Sweden, where primary schools were never closed. Also, countries such as Denmark, Singapore, and a few other East Asian countries where schools were closed for only short periods and actions were taken to maximize the effectiveness of online education also experienced little or no learning loss. Such actions included giving schools extra resources for teaching and student well-being efforts
The consequences of the learning losses stemming from the Covid-19 school closures extend beyond the academic realm. The loss of human capital among the current generation of students will have enduring economic implications, both for the students themselves and for their countries. When they enter the labor market, their earnings will be lower than would have been the case in the absence of the learning losses, which will constrain their countries’ productivity, economic output, and growth and development.
The results from PISA and PIRLS are unequivocal: A crisis in education is has arrived, and low-achieving students are being disproportionately affected. As we navigate these challenges going forward, it will be imperative to make concerted efforts to find evidence-based strategies to mitigate the damage done by the pandemic closures and to enhance students’ learning outcomes. The time to act is now, for the sake of both current and future generations.
Our schools have lost their sense of purpose
Editor’s note: A portion of this essay is excepted from the author’s Substack, The Education Daly.
I recently examined the rise in teacher absenteeism post-pandemic. I concluded that it’s a serious threat to learning recovery, and that it reflects broader shifts in the teacher labor market.
I dug deeper recently by inquiring about the problem in two affluent Chicago-area school districts—Hinsdale, which has seen a sharp rise in absenteeism rates, and Evanston, which surprisingly has reported a steep drop.
I was surprised when neither district confirmed the accuracy of the data they had previously submitted to the state. Instead, they responded with a combination of ambiguity and silence. This, I realized, is becoming familiar. In many ways, it epitomizes our failed pandemic recovery in which schools are stuck in a downward spiral of lost purpose. Teacher absenteeism is just one facet of a broader, grimmer reality.
Our education system is struggling in its entirety. The bounce-back we once envisioned—a fiery national mobilization to overcome learning setbacks—has eluded us. It’s depressingly easy to list the evidence:
- More families are choosing to have their children skip kindergarten.
- Homeschooling is here to stay.
- Fights are breaking out far more often.
- Schools are assigning lenient grades even when students are struggling academically and missing school frequently.
- We lost a generation worth of learning progress on national tests.
- Students in lower-income communities are on such a gradual trajectory that they may never recover.
- College enrollment is down and far fewer Americans believe in the value of higher education.
Against this backdrop, higher teacher absenteeism is predictable. It would be shocking if it had not increased. No group, from students to parents to teachers to administrators, feels the same connection to our schools that they once did. No matter how many times we try to psych ourselves up that now, finally, we’re going to cue the Rocky theme music and sprint up the stairs to the Philly art museum, all we have is false starts. We have districts struggling to count the number of days teachers miss.
This, ultimately, is why I suspect the issue has gotten so little attention. It’s depressing. We don’t know how to solve it. Nobody wants to make teachers feel bad after all they’ve been through. I share that feeling.
But I also believe this: If we don’t start talking openly about the failure of our pandemic recovery, we will be slipping and sliding for another generation. It’s a crisis.
Teacher absenteeism will normalize when everything else normalizes—when our schools regain their core sense of purpose.
Here are some steps that might help:
- Let’s officially move forward. It’s been almost exactly four years since kids nationwide were sent home during the first wave of Covid. A full Olympiad. After all that time, there’s still residue in our schools that needs cleaning out. We need to move on—collectively. I don’t mean we should abandon health mitigation measures and leave those with vulnerable immune systems to fend for themselves. I’m talking about the psychological end of the pandemic’s hold on schools. A national day of remembrance for all those lost during the pandemic. A chance to appreciate everyone from health care providers to neighbors who pulled together to help us get to the other side. A true holiday. And then, a new chapter where schools (and state leaders) re-embrace norms around attendance, engagement, and achievement. It’s time.
- Set some goals. What would it mean for our schools to “recover” from the pandemic? What’s the finish line? Have you seen anyone define it? Lack of clarity about what we’re trying to achieve and by when is impairing our progress. As calls increase for another infusion of federal funding, it’s important that new resources be paired with requirements for states to clearly articulate their targets and timelines for Covid recovery. We need a plan here.
- Focus on first principles at the school level. Some schools lost the thread somewhere in the fog of Covid—understandably. But now, their attention is all over the place. Folks are tired. Instead of staying the course with more professional development sessions on differentiating instruction, such schools should take time getting clear about their basic goals. Back to square one. Physical health and mental well-being have required outsized attention during this era—for good reason. However, we need to refocus on our academic mission. There’s no shame in high standards for our students and high expectations for our educators. Kids can do homework. They can study for tests. They can write essays. They can stay off social media during class. They can submit science fair projects. They can show up five days a week. If we treat our students—particularly those from lower-income backgrounds—as though they are so damaged by the pandemic that they can’t possibly meet real challenges, they won’t. We’ve learned that the hard way.
- Restore state-level accountability. States hit pause on gathering key information and using it to intervene with struggling schools. They had no choice. But some states have waited too long to resume healthy oversight. Data-rich states like Illinois have a head start. However, when districts aren’t accurately reporting basic data like teacher attendance and it isn’t being flagged and addressed through routine quality controls, it’s probably a sign that state agencies can play a more assertive role. Let’s give the public confidence that our schools can execute.
- Sell the value of education. It’s no longer a self-evident proposition for anyone involved. Why does this enterprise warrant so much of our attention and funding? We desperately need to invest in our young people. But taxpayers will be increasingly skeptical if all they read is headlines about kids and teachers not showing up. States—especially those with declining enrollment—should be preparing now. More importantly, our young people aren’t buying in. What’s being done to change that? Until we win them over, we’re stuck.
All of these things are related. Teachers will stop missing days when schools are exciting, vibrant, successful places where they want to spend their time. Students will stop missing days at exactly the same time. It’s been four years. The clock’s ticking.
The value of a college degree: Evidence and trends from 2009–2021
How valuable is a bachelor’s degree? Less so than it used it be, says a new report, but the ultimate value depends on a number of factors, including tuition cost and college major.
A trio of researchers led by Liang Zhang of New York University focused on the internal rate of return (IRR) for students who graduated with a bachelor’s degree between 2009 and 2021, using data from the American Community Survey (ACS). 2009 was the first year ACS began collecting information on the majors in which students completed degrees. They limited the sample to individuals who were born in the United States and were eighteen to sixty-five years old, held either a high school diploma or a bachelor’s degree as their highest level of education, were not currently enrolled in school, and had positive earnings. Applying these criteria yielded a final sample of 5.8 million individuals with an even split of 2.9 million college graduates and 2.9 million high school graduates as the comparison group. The IRR calculation considers both the lifetime costs (e.g., tuition and forgone earnings) and benefits (e.g., higher earnings) of college to graduates by discounting future costs and benefits to their present value. One issue the researchers touch on is a potential mismatch between the ability levels of the two groups of students (A+ high schoolers vs. C- college grads). Without this specific data, they use “estimates from the existing literature” to adjust for the possible selection bias. Inexact, but at least on their minds.
First and foremost, they find that college degree completion still provides a solid return on investment compared to students with just high school degrees. Both median and mean earnings show an IRR between 9 and 10 percent. Male college graduates get a lower return than their female counterparts, but the difference is around three quarters of a percent. The analysts do note that similar research in the late 1980s showed a larger IRR. The researchers suggest this likely reflects both the increase in college costs in the intervening years and the flattening of wage growth generally following the Great Recession.
Additionally, IRR varies significantly depending on the college major a student pursues. Engineering and computer science majors are at the top (more than a 13 percent IRR)—with business, health, and math and science close behind. At the lower end are education, humanities, and the arts (below an 8 percent IRR). The researchers note a strong increase in degree completion among those higher-level majors over the timespan of their analysis, despite the overall reduction in college enrollment since 2010, which helps buoy the overall IRR findings.
The limitations noted by the researchers are small but important—including no differential impacts calculated based on the selectivity of colleges attended or of tax-related policies that can decrease earnings or reduce the final cost of college attendance. More important is the fact that the labor market of tomorrow may not follow the historical trends on display here. Ongoing technological advancements in robotics and artificial intelligence, as well as the increase in career-technical education opportunities in the middle and high school years, have the potential to upend all employment sectors in unpredictable ways.
As clear as these data are about the declining but still quite positive return on a college degree even as recently as 2021, the future for today’s degree earners is nowhere near as crystalline as that hindsight.
SOURCE: Liang Zhang, Xiangmin Liu, and Yitong Hu, “Degrees of Return: Estimating Internal Rates of Return for College Majors Using Quantile Regression,” American Educational Research Journal (March 2024).
#913: Advancing cross-partisan education policies, with Lorén Cox and Karen Nussle
On this week’s Education Gadfly Show podcast, Lorén Cox, the policy director for the Education and Society program at the Aspen Institute, and Karen Nussle, the founder and CEO of Ripple Communications, join Mike and David to discuss how cross-partisanship—both sides agreeing on the same conclusion for disparate reasons—benefits education. Then, on the Research Minute, Amber reports on a new study examining how college achievement and retention is affected by “corequisite” remedial classes—meaning those taken at the same time as, not before, the course requiring the remediation.
Recommended content:
- “Crossing the partisan divide in education policy” — Lorén Cox and Karen Nussle, Aspen Institute
- “A bridge back to bipartisan education reform” —Michael Petrilli, Fordham Institute
- Florence Xiaotao Ran and Hojung Lee, “Does corequisite remediation work for everyone? An exploration of heterogeneous effects and mechanisms,” Annenberg Institute at Brown University (March 2024).
Feedback Welcome: Have ideas for improving our podcast? Send them to Daniel Buck at [email protected].
Cheers and Jeers: March 28, 2024
Cheers
- Massachusetts governor Maura Healey expressed opposition to the abolition of her state’s graduation exam. —Boston Globe
- The Montgomery County school board adopted knowledge-rich, phonics-focused English language arts curricula for elementary schools. —MoCo 360
- A newly proposed bill in California would require schools to use science-of-reading-based curriculum and instruction. —The 74
Jeers
- Stripped autonomy, increased workloads, and chaotic classrooms have created an unsustainable job for teachers that a few pay raises can’t fix. —Ben Stein, USA Today
- While other districts have recognized the importance of content knowledge to literacy, a Denver charter school cut science classes to focus on reading intervention. —Chalkbeat
What we're reading this week: March 28, 2024
- One Tufts professor taught a seminar on conservative thought, and students learned about more than just Burke and Tocqueville. —Boston Magazine
- After Florida passed the first such legislation, lawmakers in several states now are making moves to ban cellphones in classrooms. —The 74
- With elevated teacher turnover rates, some states are proposing raises in teacher salaries. —Wall Street Journal
- Best practices for career and technical education remain understudied, but the Institute for Education Sciences continues to fill in that research gap. —Mark Schneider, IES
- Standardized tests provide students from underprivileged backgrounds a shot at proving their potential. —Emi Nietfeld, New York Times
- Bills in fourteen states would allow schools to hire chaplains. —Washington Post
- AI may render second language learning obsolete, but humanity will lose important knowledge as bilingualism withers. —Louise Matsakis, The Atlantic
- “Data from 9,500 districts shows another boom year for school staffing even as fiscal cliff looms.” —Chad Aldeman, The 74