Educaton Week 1/26/2011 issue

Districts’ Efficiency Evaluated in Report, p.1

The Center for American Progress, a think tank that has produced a series of reports that examine government accountability and efficiency, has produced a report that evaluates the “educational efficiency” of some 9000+ school districts around the country, covering school districts with more than 250 students in all states but four (also excluding the District of Columbia).  The aim of the report is to generate discussion about how efficiently school districts are using their funding, especially as stimulus funds for education are drying up and states are having to cut back funding in all areas, including education, because of the economic downturn.  It attempts to measure “productivity” by looking at student math and reading test results compared to dollars spent.  It came up with three different measures of productivity:  (1) A “basic return on investment” measure rates school districts within a state based on how much academic achievement they get for each dollar spent (with some adjustment for more expensive students such as special ed students, free lunch-qualified students, and ELL students).  (2) An “adjusted return on investement” measure is similar to the basic measure, above, but it takes into account some additional factors that result in spending differences within a state.  (3) A “predicted” efficiency rating is even more sophisticated, attempting to gauge how much achievement a district produced compared to another district in that state that had a similar spending level and similar student demographics.

Some findings:  High-spending districts are often inefficient.  Only about one-sixth of the Florida school districts who ranked in the top third in spending were also in the top third in achievement, for example.  Also, students from disadvantaged backgrounds were more likely to be enrolled in highly inefficient districts.  Some of the more efficient school districts were spending more on teachers and less on administration, were partnering with their communities to hold down expenses (one school district shared a technology center with the town, for example), or were saving money by closing low-enrollment schools.  With a few notable exceptions, most of the efficient school districts were larger and wealthier.

The author of the report acknowledges that the research cannot account for all of the variables outside of the control of the school district and or for flaws in the database that it used.  One critic of the report pointed out that it does not adequately account for the extra resources that are needed to educate disadvantaged students.  And there was concern that the report might be used to justify cuts in funding.

[My thoughts:  Imagine two school districts with identical funding levels.  One is located in a blighted urban area and serves a high percentage of at-risk students, and the other is in an affluent suburb.  Since student achievement (test scores) is one of the two variables in the efficiency model, the first school district will most likely be “inefficient” while the second will be “efficient.”  How useful is this measure, even if you attempt to control for different student demographics?  There were few ideas offered in the article for how to control costs, on the one hand, or to increase student achievement, on the other.  The report pointed to a school district in a Kentucky coal-mining community that measured high in efficiency and was getting good academic achievement from a predominantly low-income student population, but there was no mention (at least in this article) of how that district was accomplishing this.  Identifying specific factors that contribute to efficiency (especially on the achievement side) would make this a much more valuable analysis.]

Choice Advocates See Issue Rising on Congressional Radar, p.17

The Republican takeover of the House of Representatives and the bolstering of Republican minority in the Senate may bode well for advocates of school choice, including those who favor school vouchers.  Republicans tend to me more supportive of vouchers, although their current priority is on reining in spending and cutting back programs, not creating and funding new ones.  The issue at hand is whether to reauthorize spending for the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program, which gives $7500 scholarships to students in low-performing schools who are from low-income families to attend higher-performing private schools.  The program expired in 2009, when an attempt to reauthorize it failed in the Senate, with Republicans in favor of reauthorization and most Democrats against it.  Senator Lieberman, who chairs a committee that oversees policy for the District of Columbia, is the major proponent of reauthorization and has been working with House Speaker John Boehner on legislation to accomplish this.  He proposes new spending that would go in equal parts to the voucher system, charter schools, and public schools in D.C.  The effort faces opposition from groups like the NEA, who are against spending on school choice when so many school districts are financially hard-pressed.

Reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind act, which has been pending since 2007, also will have to address the issue of school choice.  Currently, schools that miss NCLB achievement targets must allow students to transfer to a higher-performing public school.  The Obama administration wants to delete this provision from any NCBL reauthorization bill, but Republicans are generally in favor of it.  School choice advocates may find causes to promote in other areas as well, such as funding incentives for schools to provide online learning (which would be like changing schools but without leaving the actual building) and in voucher programs for special ed students.

[My thoughts:  I am somewhat ambivalent on the school choice issue.  On the one hand, if a school is “broken” we should fix it instead of paying students to go elsewhere.  On the other hand, if I had a son or daughter in school and the local school was a “broken” school, with no chance of being fixed any time soon, I would want my child to go to another school, preferably a well-rated public school—if one were available in the district.  If there were no good public schools in the district, I would send my child to a private school.  Would I like to receive a voucher or “scholarship” to help pay for this private schooling?  Of course.  Should public funds be used to pay for my child’s private school?  Aye, there’s the rub!]   

Education Week 1/19/2011 issue

School Restructures Student Grouping, p. 1

Palmer Park Preparatory Academy, a middle school in the troubled Detroit school system, is being used to test some innovative pilot programs that eventually could be expanded to include other schools in the system.  First, it will become a teacher-led school.  Four lead teachers are being trained to take on the budgeting and management duties usually done by an administrator.  Second, an extended day gives teachers the opportunity every afternoon to engage in “common planning,”  in addition to their regular prep periods during the day.  They use the common planning time to discuss things such as the results of their lessons, to analyze data from quarterly benchmark assessments, and to decide whether particular students are ready to be moved to another class.  Third, they are experimenting with “differentiated instruction” for students, especially  for those who have struggled to understand key concepts and who are at risk for falling behind.  Schedules are personalized for all students in the pilot program based on data culled from state, local, and classroom tests.  Students are placed into one of three classrooms for math and one of three classroom for English/language arts, depending on whether they need more intensive instruction in basic concepts or whether they are ready to move on to more in-depth instruction.  Student progress can be monitored on a weekly or even daily basis, and a student can move to another class whenever he/she is ready.  Scheduling is based on student needs, not on teacher preferences or convenience.

Differentiated instruction is not a new idea.  It is similar to the controversial concepts of “ability grouping" and “tracking.”  Critics of these concepts contend that they benefit high achievers but lead to greater educational disparities between them and the low-achieving peers.  Anecdotal evidence at this school, however, suggests that students appear to be more engaged and focused on their tasks; some have proactively asked to move on to other classes.  Although the program is so new that there is hard evidence to go on, the district will be carefully monitoring progress at the school and accumulating comparative data, including standardized test scores and other measures.  If the school shows progress, the district will consider expanding the concept to other schools.

[My thoughts:  The innovative approach being tried in this school came about because of a partnership among teachers, the local teachers’ union, the central administration, and a publisher that was hired to revamp the school’s curriculum and which provided the data to drive the differential instruction.  It may be difficult to bring together such a coalition in other school districts.  I’m not sure that I see the need for teachers to perform administrative roles, but the concept of differential instruction is intriguing to me.  It may mean longer hours and a more hectic schedule for teachers, but I see the potential of real benefits for students.  I hope that the editors will re-visit the school to see how the experiment has worked once comparative data have become available.]

 Renewed Push on ESEA Likely, p. 1

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is being pushed by the Obama administration for renewal.  The current version of the law, the No Child Left Behind Act, was passed in late 2001, touted as one of George W. Bush’s singular achievements during his presidency.  NCLB is now seen as outdated, however, and a revised version of ESEAwas put forward last year, pushed by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.  The revised plan ties teacher evaluations in part to student test scores, gives states more control over how to improve student progress while calling on them to better prepare students for college or for a career, and proposes stringent programs to help those schools that are struggling the most.  Some of the administration’s K-12 priorities have already been partially realized through the $100 billion for education in the federal stimulus bill.  The $4 billion Race to the Top program, included in the stimulus bill, pushed states to adopt more uniform and rigorous standards, revise their charter school laws, and reconsider teacher tenure  and evaluation.

Prospects for the Obama administration’s revised ESEA appear to be uncertain, however.  Some of the newly-elected tea party Republicans would prefer to do away with the Department of Education and transfer decision making back to the state and local levels.  But Republican leaders share Obama’s concern with teacher quality and would be more inclined to work with the administration on a revised ESEA.  The problem has more to do with Democrats in Congress, who are divided over the proposed changes.  The NEA, which is usually a reliable ally of the Democratic Party, is highly critical of the administration’s push to link teacher evaluations and tenure decisions to student test scores.  A number of Democrats will not want to alienate the teachers unions, although others will want to support the President.  It remains to be seen whether they will be able to find common ground.

[Comment:  I am reminded of the politician who said, “I am a member of no organized political party.  I am a Democrat.”] 

Education Week 1/12/2011 issue

Simulations Help Novices Hone Skills, p. 1

Classroom simulation programs are being used to provide teacher candidates with opportunities to work in virtual classrooms with different groups of students and to develop their classroom management skills.  TeachMe is one such program, which is being used at the University of Central Florida.  Another program is simSchool, which features the ability to define up to 18 individual students with different emotional characteristics and response patterns, so that the teacher candidate will have to adapt his/her methods to these different individual students during the classroom simulation.  The idea behind these programs is not to replace actual student teaching but rather to build their skills in a virtual environment where mistakes will not have actual consequences on a child’s education.

The TeachMe program uses an actual actor for each lesson, who plays five roles based on different student personalities and profiles.  The actor has a copy of the day’s lesson plan and plays each character in turn in response to the teacher candidate’s classroom instruction.  They have no script, only a knowledge of the background of the characters they are to play.  TeachMe may appeal to more youthful teacher candidates who have grown up in a world of computer-simulated reality.

The simSchool program is quite sophisticated.  It looks at the complexity of the tasks assigned by the user, the different personalities of the students (which can be customized in advance), and the students’ level of involvement in each activity.  It tracks student performance based on the actions of the teacher candidate.  The virtual students may pay attention, or they may decide to distract their peers.  They may understand the lesson, or it may be too difficult for them and they become frustrated.  They will reflect different emotional factors (including openness to learning and conscientiousness), different perceptual abilities, and different cognitive abilities such as the general capacity to learn.  Results have been encouraging for users of simSchool.  Those who have used it report higher levels of “instructional self-efficacy.”  They were more resilient in the face of instructional setbacks, which could improve retention rates among new teachers.

[My thoughts:  I cannot help but think either of these programs would be a great tool for prospective teachers.  They could be used to help them hone their skills prior to their actual practice teaching.  I particularly like the capability of the simSchool program for customizing different types of students that the teacher candidate might encounter.  It could provide some challenges that might not be present during actual practice teaching, depending on the venue involved.]

Gates Analysis Offers Clues to Identification of Teacher Effectiveness, p. 11

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has financed a Measure of Teaching Effectiveness study.  In its December preliminary report it identified two components of teacher effectiveness:  teachers’ value-added histories, which were strong predictors of how they would perform in other classrooms or in other school years, and students’ perceptions of their teachers’ abilities to maintain order in the classroom and provide challenging lessons.  “Value-added” modeling controls factors such as a student’s past performance in order to attribute learning gains to a specific teacher.  Students’ perceptions of their teachers’ abilities included their perceptions that the teachers made the point of their lessons clear, were considerate of their students, and were able to explain the material presented in different ways understandable to students. 

The study found that, in every grade and subject, teachers’ value-added histories were strongly predictive of their performance in other classrooms, although there was some volatility in the estimates from year to year.  It also found that students’ perceptions of their teacher were consistent across his/her classes, and that the teachers that they gave high ratings to, especially in the areas of classroom management and providing a challenging academic environment, were teachers whose classes consistently made learning gains.  Value-added measures of teacher effectiveness held up even when students were given supplemental tests requiring harder tasks such as conceptual questions and open-ended writing (which are more difficult to prepare for).  Although there was a positive correlation between test preparation and value-added estimates of teacher effectiveness, this was weaker than other factors.

Some states have moved toward including value-added estimates in teacher evaluations.  Few are considering including student perceptions.  The study seems to suggest that both factors should be included, as well as other factors such as teachers’ content knowledge and working conditions.  Further studies will try to measure student performance when students are randomly assigned to teachers identified as more effective or less effective.

[My thoughts:  There have been a number of methodological issues raised by some who question using value-added estimates to measure teacher effectiveness, but these are only hinted at in this brief overview.  The article mentions “volatility” in value-added estimates for specific teachers from year to year, for example, without giving statistics to indicate how seriously this volatility could undermine the reliability of value-added estimates.  Nor does it talk about how value-added estimates could be skewed by social selection factors such as parents (of good students) wanting to locate near good schools, good teachers wanting to get jobs in good schools, and good students seeking to take classes with teachers who are known to be good teachers.  Further studies using students who are randomly assigned to teachers, mentioned in the article, could control for some of these social factors and also yield more reliable results.]

Education Week 12/01/2010 issue

Class-Size Limits Targeted for Cuts, p. 1

As schools cope with budget shortfalls, some are considering increasing class sizes.  This would be a step in the opposite direction from the long-term national trend.  Nationally, average class size has gone from  17.6 in 1980 to 15.8 in 2008.  These figures may be deceptive, however, in that they include special education classes and other specialized classes, the number of which have increased since 1980 and which typically have small classes.  The U.S. Department of Education estimates actual class size to be closer to 25 students.

Those who push for smaller class sizes argue it is the simplest way to increase student achievement.  A 1984 study in Tennessee that tracked over 7,000 K-3 students over four years compared students who were placed in classes of 13-17 students vs. those in classes of 22-25.  It showed higher student performance in the smaller classes, including poor and minority students.  Follow up studies years later indicated that the small-class students went to college, got married, and bought houses at higher rates than their large-class peers.  Results like this make small classes a popular idea with teachers and parents.

When other states have tried to replicate Tennessee’s experiment, however, there have been mixed results, leading to skepticism on the part of some researchers and policy makers.  Some critics contend that small class sizes are too expensive for the minimal improvement in achievement.  Japan and South Korea both have higher average class sizes than the U.S., although their students out-perform American students.   Federal funding for reducing class sizes, common in the 1990’s, was left out of the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act.  Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has proposed that targeted increases in class sizes could be combined with programs such as varying class sizes by teacher expertise, or bringing in part-time staff to help with larger classes.  Some school districts have experimented with different approaches.  One of the more interesting approaches is the one tried at New York’s Generation Schools Network, where instructors where hired to fill some administrative positions.  Each morning, almost everyone jumps in to help teach 90-minute blocks of basic courses, keeping the class sizes small.  In the afternoon, the regular teachers concentrate on electives, with larger class sizes.  Overall, teacher loads are smaller than at other New York schools, while operating costs are slightly cheaper.

Some school districts have accepted larger class sizes simply to maintain existing programs in tight times, such as music programs.  Some schools have willingly traded smaller class sizes to find funding for other reforms.  In the Nogales school district in Arizona, for example, they have added more math and reading specialists as class sizes rose, and test scores have risen each year in spite of larger classes.

[My thoughts:  tight budgets may require us to become more experimental and innovative, which can be a good thing in itself.  But how much better to have both small classes and innovative programs.  I cannot help but think that, although the public has to re-think its priorities in tough times, education has got to be at the top of anyone’s priority list.  Our children’s futures are at stake.]

Education Week 11/17/2010 issue

New Tack on NCLB: Regulatory Relief, p. 1

School districts struggling under the mandatory provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act are hoping for a reprieve from the Department of Education.  They argue that financially-strapped school districts should not spend money to meet the requirements of a law that may be re-written by a new Congress.  The DOE is pushing for renewal of the law, while saying that it is taking these concerns “into consideration.”  Looming on the horizon is the 2013-2014 deadline for bringing all students up to proficiency in reading and math.  Schools will be hit by sanctions for not meeting these targets, which will impact school district and state finances.

The school districts are calling for “regulatory relief” in this matter, which may resonate with the incoming Republican majority in the House of Representatives, many of whom ran on a platform of “slimmed-down” government.  Civil rights groups who are focused on improving education for disadvantaged students are leery of watering down the law’s core principles, however.  They do not want to abandon accountability goals at the heart of NCLB.  And the Obama administration may conclude that it too wants to avoid the prospect of Republican criticism that it has caved in on accountability.

Education groups (the AASA and the NSBA, for example) are pushing for concessions, such as suspending sanctions for schools that do not meet NCLB achievement targets until a new law is in place.  Some have proposed two-year testing of students as opposed to annual testing.  Others point out that we need annual testing to track students’ progress, and giving flexibility to the states will only allow them to “game” the system one more time.  Those wanting changes hope that this will come in a reauthorization of the bill in 2011.  The Obama administration is hoping for a renewal, but the Republican House may want to look at it all over again.  There could be a full-blown renewal, or a targeted “patch,” which might make targeted changes but without changing the basic structure of NCLB.

[My thoughts: “Regulatory relief” is the perfect term to present to a Republican House of Representatives if you want to circumvent government mandates, in education or any other area.  The question should be whether or not it is in the students’ best interests that schools be held to these standards.  Are these NCLB standards appropriate and meaningful, or are they arbitrary and possibly counterproductive?  These are the questions we ought to be debating.  There should be no Republican view of education vs. a Democratic view of education.  Yes, teachers typically support Democrats, who typically are willing to spend more money on education.  Political coalitions aside, we should all want what is best for our kids and we should be willing to pay for it.]

Education Week 11/10/2010 issue

Public Schools Taking Lessons from Charters, p. 1

Proponents of charter schools view the role of these schools as promising research-and-development sites for traditional public schools.  But so far there has not been much cooperation between charter schools and public schools.  In 2009 the U.S. Department of Education spent $6.7 million on grants to encourage charter schools to share what they’ve learned with other schools, and it is hoping to promote the spread of promising charter school practices.  There seems to be some disagreement over how much charter schools have to share, however.  Some of the charter school ionnovations, such as extended school schedules and small school size, had already been introduced in some public schools, for example.

There have been some examples of charter school-public school collaboration.  In a troubled school district in Rhode Island, for example, the district contracted with the charter school to provide professional development for some of its reading teachers.  This collaboration was credited with improved student reading scores for the district.  And a school district in Tacoma, Washington, has borrowed some charter-school practices, resulting in improved test scores.  At one of its high schools, almost one-fourth of its students attend a special school-within-a-school (Lincoln Center) modeled after specific charter schools and incorporating some of their practices.  Lincoln Center is open from 7:30am-5:00pm Monday through Friday, plus two Saturdays a month.  Its academic standards for  students are more rigorous than state standards.  It also is selective in its choice of teachers, picking those with successful classroom experience.  Teachers work extra hours as needed, but they are also compensated for this above and beyond their union contract.

The Tacoma district is working with Harvard University economist Roland Fryer.  Fryer has identified five tenets of successful schools:  investing in human capital, providing extensive tutoring, extending time for learning, creating a culture of high expectations, and using results-based instruction.  The district is working in competition with charter schools, however, not in collaboration with them.  Whether public schools will be able to benefit from charter school innovations seems to depend on whether conditions in a particular district are ripe for collaboration.

[My thoughts:  the bottom line ought to be what practices are most beneficial to students’ learning, not where did they come from.  There should be a free exchange of ideas and an open dialog about what works best.  Students in all schools, charter or traditional, should benefit from successful experimentation.]

Education Week 11/03/2010 issue

Funds Fuel Graduation Initiatives, p.1

The U.S. Department of Education is providing almost $50 million in grants to states and school districts to fund a high school graduation initiative.  This was the first installment, with hopefully more to come in five-year grants.  The current overall high school graduation rate is 70%, but this figure drops to 50% in poor communities.  This high school completion strategy ties in with one of President Obama’s goals, to make the U.S. the leader in college completion.

The funding is aimed at both helping schools keep students from dropping out and bringing back students who had already dropped out.  The new emphasis is on monitoring student attendance, behavior, and coursework in middle school, looking for warning signs.  The focus will be on helping individual students rather than demographic groups of students.  The program will enlist the aid of social service groups and community groups to help returning dropouts make up lost ground, using school “acceleration institutes” and community-based “re-engagement specialists” such as social workers.

The new initiative provides a welcome focus on improvement in high school graduation rates as part of the push to increase college graduation rates.  The future of the initiative is uncertain, however, given funding uncertainties due to the financial crisis.

City’s Black Males Stay in School, p. 1

Baltimore school leaders have been working with a program over the past three years to keep more students in school and on track to graduation.  One result:  Black male students’ graduation rate has increased from 51% in 2006-2007 to 57.3% in 2009-2010.  Overall graduation rates went from 60% to 66% over the same time span.  Blacks make up 87.8% of enrollment in city schools.  Comparable national figures for 2006-2007:  46.7% of African American males graduated versus 73.7% of white males.  The district has also scored higher on National Assessments (83.6%) than would be expected in a high-poverty area.  The emphasis of the program has been on reducing absenteeism and suspensions, providing students with more public school choice options, and enlisting community partnerships.  One strategy has been the “Great Kids Come Back Campaign,” with volunteer s knocking on doors to try to bring back dropouts.

One key has been to change the expectations of adults—it was always assumed that a certain percentage of students would be lost, based on practices such as showing the door to students who came infrequently, who had discipline problems, or who were old but had too few credits.  Instead, an “intervention period” was created for such students while efforts were made to help get them back on track.

Student mindsets had to change as well.  Community group leaders, who “speak a language the community understands,” have been used to help bring defiant and disruptive students into the program.