The Education Gadfly Weekly

Consortium for Policy Research in Education

Margaret Goertz and Mark Duffy of Penn's Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) have issued both a 7-page "policy brief" and a longer report on state accountability systems (as those stood in spring 2000). There's much pertinent information here, particularly as we reflect on the changes that states must make to comply with the pending E.S.E.A. requirements. While 48 states were testing students statewide in 2000 (Iowa and Nebraska settle for requiring districts to test their own students), only a dozen used the same assessment for the same kids in the same subjects every year. The others skip around. And while 33 states had "state-defined accountability systems" in place, these varied greatly in how they define and measure pupil proficiency. Some focus on relative growth (i.e. schools progressing from their previous achievement levels), some on absolute standards, some on reducing the number of kids in low performing groups. Only a few jurisdictions "hold schools accountable for the performance of specific groups of students, such as racial/ethnic minorities or economically-disadvantaged students." But consequences for schools and, especially, for districts are few. In sum, most states have a ways to go to prepare for the mandates that E.S.E.A. is probably going to lay on them. The short version is coded RB-33-May 2001 and we think it's free, from the CPRE website http://www.gse.upenn.edu/cpre/ or by phoning (215) 573-0700, x 233. The long version-CPRE Research Report RR-046, March 2001-weighs in at 41 pages and can be downloaded from the website at http://www.gse.upenn.edu/cpre/frames/search.html or purchased in hard-copy for $5. You may also write CPRE Publications, Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania, 3440 Market Street, Suite 560, Philadelphia, PA 19104. Also available (in "Adobe Acrobat" format) on the website are detailed profiles of each state's assessment and accountability system: http://www.gse.upenn.edu/cpre/frames/pubs.html

Charter Friends National Network

As the charter school movement advances, one of its most contentious practices is the "contracting out" of school management services. In such arrangements, charter boards hand over the reins of school control to for-profit or non-profit firms. Critics argue that contracted management -- especially by profit-seeking companies -- amounts to dangerous "privatization" of public education. Others see an opportunity to raise student achievement. Charting a Clear Course, a new report written by Margaret Lin and Bryan Hassel for the Charter Friends National Network, cuts through this debate. Noting that widespread contracting already occurs, the authors explain that "the real issue is not whether contracting should take place, but how." To this end, the report outlines practical strategies for charter boards to establish sound contractual arrangements. Such contracting requires arranging the charter board's public obligations to ensure responsible school management while ensuring that contractors are free from excessive outside control. "In order to hold contractors accountable for performance, those contractors must receive proportionate autonomy and authority to execute their responsibilities as promised," the authors argue. Informed by on-the-ground lessons from charter authorizers, education management organizations, and others, Charting a Clear Course dispenses useful advice on defining responsibilities, establishing guidelines, structuring performance evaluations, and determining compensation. The report also contains a helpful checklist of important provisions to include in school management agreements. Obtain a free copy by calling CFNN at 651-644-6115, or download the entire report at www.charterfriends.org/contracting.pdf.

Council of Chief State School Officers' Initiative to Improve Achievement in High Poverty Schools

Those interested in opportunities for coordinating special and compensatory education programs between states, districts, and schools may be interested in obtaining this new report, which details the findings of two such efforts. These brought together peer consultants from six states representing state Title I and special education staff, auditors, school districts, and parents to meet with federal Title I and special education staff. The two groups discussed ways to better serve students at risk of academic failure via special and compensatory education collaboration at the federal, state, local, and classroom levels. In summarizing the consultants' comments, the report focuses on four main issues: the state teams' vision of collaboration between special education and Title I; examples of current successful collaborations among the states; the challenges to collaboration between special education and Title I; and strategies and next steps to facilitate greater collaboration. The publication is available on the Council of Chief State School Officers website at http://publications.ccsso.org/ccsso/publication_list.cfm. Hard copies are not currently available.

University of Exeter

A study examining the just-completed first year of a new performance-pay plan in Britain has been released by University of Exeter Professor Ted Wragg. He analyzed responses from a sample of 1000 primary and secondary head teachers (principals) who were charged with implementing government-mandated performance pay in their schools. Teachers were judged in five areas: knowledge and understanding; teaching and assessment; pupil progress; wider professional effectiveness; and professional characteristics. External auditors assessed head teachers' decisions on these applications, but rarely disputed their conclusions (though the auditors based their own analysis almost entirely on paperwork, not classroom observation). The study reports that three-quarters of head teachers surveyed felt that performance pay had little or no effect on what teachers did in the classroom. The main effect of the new pay package, said the head teachers, was to increase teachers' record keeping rather than to improve classroom practices. Head teachers also reported that evaluating teachers made an awful lot of work for them! Wragg's report is full of procedural details as well as opinions and observations-mostly negative-by primary and secondary teachers. One may fairly wonder whether this is the best way to conduct this kind of evaluation. Still, if you are interested in the nitty-gritty of one form of performance pay, contact the Teachers' Incentive Pay Project, School of Education, University of Exeter, Heavitree Road, Exeter EX1 2LU, United Kingdom; telephone 01392 264826; email [email protected].

The National Center for Education Statistics

The National Center for Education Statistics has released a new (June 2001) study of public-school teacher preparation and development, based on data gathered in 2000 and meant to be compared with similar data from two years earlier. This 50 page report mostly consists of tables, though there are several interpretive pages at the beginning. I was struck by how many teachers say they participate in professional development. For example, 80 percent said they took part during the previous year in professional development related to state or district curriculum and standards, 74 percent learned about technology and 72 percent learned more about their subject areas. The time spent in these pursuits, however, mostly amounted to fewer than 8 hours in the year. According to the teachers, "in-depth study in the subject area of main teaching assignment" was most apt to improve their classroom teaching-and, not surprisingly, the more they studied the more improved they felt. (For example, among those who studied their subject area 8 hours or less, just 13 percent felt that it helped their teaching "a lot," while among those who studied more than 8 hours the figure was 37 percent.) Teachers also reported on how well prepared they judge themselves to be. Sixty-one percent said they felt "very well prepared" to "meet the overall demands of teaching assignments" but those numbers felt sharply when it came to teaching children with disabilities (32 percent), integrating technology into the classroom (27 percent) and addressing the needs of children with limited English proficiency (also 27 percent). You can get this report from the web by surfing to http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001088.pdf. The contact person at the Education Department is Bernard Greene, (202) 502-7348.

Center for Civic Innovation, Manhattan Institute

This report by the Manhattan Institute's Center for Civic Innovation provides statistics on the SURR list (Schools Under Registration Review) in New York. These low-performing public schools are targeted for corrective instruction and-in principle-closed if significant improvements are not made within three years. Twenty percent of all public schools in the state are located in New York City, yet the city's five boroughs comprise almost ninety percent of the schools on the SURR list. These schools have a disproportionate number of minority students as well as a disproportionate number of uncertified teachers. While the State Education Department's guidelines would seem to demand rapid turnaround or severe consequences, these schools often linger on the SURR list for an average of five years and are only shut down after nine years or more-or never. This brief report contains little text or analysis but many interesting graphs and tables that provide alarming statistics on the racial make-up, test scores and income levels within SURR schools. Perhaps most disturbing are the current percentages of students performing below an acceptable level in reading and math in schools that actually got taken off the SURR list in 2000. In Grade 4, the percentage of students reading below an acceptable level is 80.9% and in math, 63.6%. In Grade 8, the percentage of students reading below an acceptable level is 77.1% and in math, 85%. Author Joseph Viteritti suggests that such data show a "resignation to failure,...which serves as a cynical excuse for a system that lacks the political will and professional know-how to provide a decent education for all, or even most, children in the city." To obtain a copy of the report surf to http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_16.htm.

Ontario has a new tax credit for parents who send their children to private schools. In the first year, parents are eligible for a refund of $460, but this amount will quintuple over five years. The plan was included in a budget bill passed in late June by the provincial legislature. Six other Canadian provinces already provide money directly to private schools. "Suck It and See: Ontario Tries School Vouchers," The Economist, June 30, 2001 http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=S%26%2880%25Q%217%2B%0A ($2.95 charge for the article)

As if the official passing score of 55 on the state's Regents exams were not low enough, the Buffalo News reported this week that students needed to answer just 33 percent of the questions correctly to achieve that score on the Regents exam in biology, and 45 percent of the questions in math. The news that the grading curves for the state's assessments were even more generous than they had seemed was greeted with cries of outrage from teachers, administrators, politicians, and even students. "Wow, what a scam!" said one teacher. The explanation offered by an assistant state superintendent was that the "scaled scoring" system used by the state to translate 33 percent to 55 percent is not an after-the-fact adjustment but an elaborate system that takes into account the difficulty of test questions to translate raw scores into scale scores.

Should a state be ashamed of setting a passing score this low? Not necessarily, so long as the assessment is good and the "cut score" isn't going to remain low forever. Developing a tough test but setting the initial passing bar low can be a shrewd reform strategy, provided the bar is then continually raised. A state that has high expectations for students spelled out in rigorous academic standards--and solid tests aligned with these standards--has taken important steps toward standards-based reform. Yet--regrettably but realistically--many of today's students are not prepared to meet high standards. This leaves states with three tough options: 1) flunk lots of students, 2) offer easy tests that most students can pass, or 3) offer challenging tests but set cut scores low at the outset, then ratchet them up. Option three may be the most likely to lead to improved instruction. New York claims that next year the cut score goes up to 65. Some doubt that this will actually happen. Watch this space.

"Regents Grading Curve Bends Generously," by Peter Simon, Buffalo News, July 17, 2001 http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20010717/1036527.asp

It being summer, the press is full of stories about the vast number of kids attending summer school, which many districts require for students who would otherwise be held back a grade. But how effective are remedial summer programs? A meta-analysis of 99 studies found that about 85% of summer programs produced measurable results; that reading skills of participating students improve three months beyond those of the control group; that mandatory and voluntary programs are about equally effective; and that summer school is more helpful to middle-class students than to the disadvantaged. For more, see "Summer Seen as Critical to Improving Schools," by Martin Kasindorf and Debbie Howlett, USA Today, July 17, 2001. http://www.usatoday.com/news/acovtue.htm

The August 2001 issue of the American School Board Journal includes a pair of articles on home schooling. Though the articles are skeptical in tone, and predictably focus on issues that local school boards may need to address, such as whether home schoolers should be allowed to participate in advanced classes or extracurricular activities at a nearby public school, they nonetheless include much useful information about the home schooling movement. Remarkably, though, neither article even mentions the stunning success of home-schooled kids in national competitions such as spelling and geography bees. "Learning without School" by Lawrence Hardy and "Accountability for Home Schoolers," by Rebecca Talluto, American School Board Journal, August 2001. http://www.asbj.com/

Is any charter school better than no charter school? Checker Finn used to think so but now he's not so sure. The Dayton Daily News traces his conversion in "Charter Guru Wisely Flexible," by Martin Gottlieb, Dayton Daily News, July 15, 2001 http://library.activedayton.com/cgi-bin/display.cgi?

The main reason important reforms don't get made in American K-12 education may be termed the Chicken Little Syndrome: the assertion that the sky will surely fall down if this change is made or, more temperately, the suggestion that the sky MIGHT collapse but we can't be sure so let's not take chances.

To watch this syndrome on display, observe the school establishment's reaction to vouchers: we don't know whether they'll work and we're not sure what will happen, so we daren't take the risk. Or the response to "charter states" and other forms of funding flexibility: we can't be sure what innovations those squirrelly states might try so we'd best not gamble. Or "alternative certification" of teachers. And so forth.

Mostly, this is the characteristic response of timid people and organizations with deep vested interests in the status quo. They fear change or believe it would adversely affect them. Their method of fending it off is to emulate Chicken Little, warning that the heavens will crash down upon innocent children if any such innovation is introduced.

Sometimes, though, we have actual experience to draw upon in predicting the likely outcome of a course of action. Sometimes Chicken Little's raindrop should be taken seriously, not as foreshadowing the sky's collapse but as a clue that there's going to be another downpour.

In those situations, it's foolish not to learn from the past. In rainy weather, after all, it's smart to carry an umbrella. Ignoring the first few drops is pretty stupid. Recall the definition of insanity as persisting with the same behavior that didn't work before in the expectation that this time it will yield a different result.

That's how I've begun to view the pending move on Capitol Hill to impose a new standards-and-testing regimen upon the land. And that's why, when New York City schools chancellor Harold Levy and Los Angeles superintendent Roy Romer warned the other day that the present federal push for higher academic standards and sterner accountability might actually lead to lower standards, I didn't think "Chicken Little is back with more false alarms." Rather I thought: it's probably going to rain again.

For we've been down this path before. And we got rained on. Recall the setting of "national education goals" in Charlottesville in 1989. Remember the goal that said "By the year 2000, American students will leave grades four, eight, and twelve having demonstrated competency in challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science, history, and geography; and every school in America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well...."

President Bush (I) and the governors gave the nation eleven years to attain that laudable outcome. Yet we never got close. Twelve years later, the main fact about academic achievement in U.S. schools is how flat it's stayed-some blips up and down, to be sure, some gap narrowing (and some widening), some progress in math, some regress in reading, etc. All this despite Bush (I)'s America 2000 program, Clinton's Goals 2000 program, quite a lot more spending, and all the new requirements of E.S.E.A. 1994, which stipulated that every state must spell out its standards, devise a testing system, track yearly progress, and intervene in faltering schools.

The goal was swell. The intent was praiseworthy. The federal programs were meant to help the country get there. But they didn't. Instead, states and districts chased their own karma. Some got better (including Bush II's Texas, which was embarked on its reform strategy long before Charlottesville). Some dithered. Some faltered. The national goals probably helped raise consciousness. The federal programs undeniably provided money. But the results, over a dozen years, came to just about nothing.

Now Senate-House conferees are going to deliberate long and hard about whether to give states and schools ten or eleven or twelve more years to set new standards, administer new tests, intervene in failing schools and thereby get every single child up to par. Federal dollars will again flow. The Education Department will again regulate. There will again be much talk of compliance. But why do we expect the result to be different this time?

Optimism is a good thing, to be sure. If we had no hope for the new day, we'd never get up in the morning. Maybe this time things really will change. But note what is NOT being altered by the pending legislation: the same things we didn't alter after Charlottesville, or in Goals 2000 or in the 1994 ESEA round. Chicken Little has, in fact, already carried the day, having again scared Congress away from the kinds of reforms that might actually yield different results. So once again we're not changing how we train, certify and deploy teachers and principals. We're not changing the 180-day school year or the 6-hour day. We're not abolishing "whole language" reading, fuzzy math or "expanding environments" social studies. We're not turning off the national TV set or making parents read to their kids. We're not mandating research-based pedagogy in every classroom. We're not empowering parents to move their children to schools that work. We're not freeing states or districts to innovate and experiment.

When you get right down to it, we're not really changing much of anything about the K-12 "delivery system." Chicken Little squawked, and the Congress balked. Yet we somehow still expect that unchanged system to produce sharply better results. Indeed, by insisting that every state raise every single child to academic proficiency, we're expecting something that the present system has never accomplished anywhere, at least not without lowering the definition of "proficiency" to cellar level.

We are, in sum, repeating something that didn't work the last time while expecting it to yield a different outcome. Chicken Little's fear of change has kept us from changing the ground rules. Hence those who earnestly seek a better result-beginning with President Bush (II)-must now predict that this time, somehow, the old system will deliver a new outcome for kids. History suggests that their optimism is misplaced. But having repelled the real reforms, Chicken Little has no business predicting that the education sky is still going to fall. It's going to stay right where it always was. All that those raindrops signal is that we're about to get soaked once again.

Related Reading

David Broder outlines the policy and political problems facing the President's education plan but argues that Bush can still salvage real reform if he starts explaining the plan to the public in "Salvaging Real Education Reform," Washington Post, July 15, 2001 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60724-2001Jul13.html

Richard Lee Colvin looks at how many schools would actually be able to meet the "adequate yearly progress" requirements of the House and Senate proposals in "Reform Bills Could Set Schools Up for Failure," Los Angeles Times, July 18, 2001 http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-071801reform.story

Center for Civic Innovation, Manhattan Institute

This report by the Manhattan Institute's Center for Civic Innovation provides statistics on the SURR list (Schools Under Registration Review) in New York. These low-performing public schools are targeted for corrective instruction and-in principle-closed if significant improvements are not made within three years. Twenty percent of all public schools in the state are located in New York City, yet the city's five boroughs comprise almost ninety percent of the schools on the SURR list. These schools have a disproportionate number of minority students as well as a disproportionate number of uncertified teachers. While the State Education Department's guidelines would seem to demand rapid turnaround or severe consequences, these schools often linger on the SURR list for an average of five years and are only shut down after nine years or more-or never. This brief report contains little text or analysis but many interesting graphs and tables that provide alarming statistics on the racial make-up, test scores and income levels within SURR schools. Perhaps most disturbing are the current percentages of students performing below an acceptable level in reading and math in schools that actually got taken off the SURR list in 2000. In Grade 4, the percentage of students reading below an acceptable level is 80.9% and in math, 63.6%. In Grade 8, the percentage of students reading below an acceptable level is 77.1% and in math, 85%. Author Joseph Viteritti suggests that such data show a "resignation to failure,...which serves as a cynical excuse for a system that lacks the political will and professional know-how to provide a decent education for all, or even most, children in the city." To obtain a copy of the report surf to http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_16.htm.

Charter Friends National Network

As the charter school movement advances, one of its most contentious practices is the "contracting out" of school management services. In such arrangements, charter boards hand over the reins of school control to for-profit or non-profit firms. Critics argue that contracted management -- especially by profit-seeking companies -- amounts to dangerous "privatization" of public education. Others see an opportunity to raise student achievement. Charting a Clear Course, a new report written by Margaret Lin and Bryan Hassel for the Charter Friends National Network, cuts through this debate. Noting that widespread contracting already occurs, the authors explain that "the real issue is not whether contracting should take place, but how." To this end, the report outlines practical strategies for charter boards to establish sound contractual arrangements. Such contracting requires arranging the charter board's public obligations to ensure responsible school management while ensuring that contractors are free from excessive outside control. "In order to hold contractors accountable for performance, those contractors must receive proportionate autonomy and authority to execute their responsibilities as promised," the authors argue. Informed by on-the-ground lessons from charter authorizers, education management organizations, and others, Charting a Clear Course dispenses useful advice on defining responsibilities, establishing guidelines, structuring performance evaluations, and determining compensation. The report also contains a helpful checklist of important provisions to include in school management agreements. Obtain a free copy by calling CFNN at 651-644-6115, or download the entire report at www.charterfriends.org/contracting.pdf.

Consortium for Policy Research in Education

Margaret Goertz and Mark Duffy of Penn's Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) have issued both a 7-page "policy brief" and a longer report on state accountability systems (as those stood in spring 2000). There's much pertinent information here, particularly as we reflect on the changes that states must make to comply with the pending E.S.E.A. requirements. While 48 states were testing students statewide in 2000 (Iowa and Nebraska settle for requiring districts to test their own students), only a dozen used the same assessment for the same kids in the same subjects every year. The others skip around. And while 33 states had "state-defined accountability systems" in place, these varied greatly in how they define and measure pupil proficiency. Some focus on relative growth (i.e. schools progressing from their previous achievement levels), some on absolute standards, some on reducing the number of kids in low performing groups. Only a few jurisdictions "hold schools accountable for the performance of specific groups of students, such as racial/ethnic minorities or economically-disadvantaged students." But consequences for schools and, especially, for districts are few. In sum, most states have a ways to go to prepare for the mandates that E.S.E.A. is probably going to lay on them. The short version is coded RB-33-May 2001 and we think it's free, from the CPRE website http://www.gse.upenn.edu/cpre/ or by phoning (215) 573-0700, x 233. The long version-CPRE Research Report RR-046, March 2001-weighs in at 41 pages and can be downloaded from the website at http://www.gse.upenn.edu/cpre/frames/search.html or purchased in hard-copy for $5. You may also write CPRE Publications, Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania, 3440 Market Street, Suite 560, Philadelphia, PA 19104. Also available (in "Adobe Acrobat" format) on the website are detailed profiles of each state's assessment and accountability system: http://www.gse.upenn.edu/cpre/frames/pubs.html

Council of Chief State School Officers' Initiative to Improve Achievement in High Poverty Schools

Those interested in opportunities for coordinating special and compensatory education programs between states, districts, and schools may be interested in obtaining this new report, which details the findings of two such efforts. These brought together peer consultants from six states representing state Title I and special education staff, auditors, school districts, and parents to meet with federal Title I and special education staff. The two groups discussed ways to better serve students at risk of academic failure via special and compensatory education collaboration at the federal, state, local, and classroom levels. In summarizing the consultants' comments, the report focuses on four main issues: the state teams' vision of collaboration between special education and Title I; examples of current successful collaborations among the states; the challenges to collaboration between special education and Title I; and strategies and next steps to facilitate greater collaboration. The publication is available on the Council of Chief State School Officers website at http://publications.ccsso.org/ccsso/publication_list.cfm. Hard copies are not currently available.

The National Center for Education Statistics

The National Center for Education Statistics has released a new (June 2001) study of public-school teacher preparation and development, based on data gathered in 2000 and meant to be compared with similar data from two years earlier. This 50 page report mostly consists of tables, though there are several interpretive pages at the beginning. I was struck by how many teachers say they participate in professional development. For example, 80 percent said they took part during the previous year in professional development related to state or district curriculum and standards, 74 percent learned about technology and 72 percent learned more about their subject areas. The time spent in these pursuits, however, mostly amounted to fewer than 8 hours in the year. According to the teachers, "in-depth study in the subject area of main teaching assignment" was most apt to improve their classroom teaching-and, not surprisingly, the more they studied the more improved they felt. (For example, among those who studied their subject area 8 hours or less, just 13 percent felt that it helped their teaching "a lot," while among those who studied more than 8 hours the figure was 37 percent.) Teachers also reported on how well prepared they judge themselves to be. Sixty-one percent said they felt "very well prepared" to "meet the overall demands of teaching assignments" but those numbers felt sharply when it came to teaching children with disabilities (32 percent), integrating technology into the classroom (27 percent) and addressing the needs of children with limited English proficiency (also 27 percent). You can get this report from the web by surfing to http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001088.pdf. The contact person at the Education Department is Bernard Greene, (202) 502-7348.

University of Exeter

A study examining the just-completed first year of a new performance-pay plan in Britain has been released by University of Exeter Professor Ted Wragg. He analyzed responses from a sample of 1000 primary and secondary head teachers (principals) who were charged with implementing government-mandated performance pay in their schools. Teachers were judged in five areas: knowledge and understanding; teaching and assessment; pupil progress; wider professional effectiveness; and professional characteristics. External auditors assessed head teachers' decisions on these applications, but rarely disputed their conclusions (though the auditors based their own analysis almost entirely on paperwork, not classroom observation). The study reports that three-quarters of head teachers surveyed felt that performance pay had little or no effect on what teachers did in the classroom. The main effect of the new pay package, said the head teachers, was to increase teachers' record keeping rather than to improve classroom practices. Head teachers also reported that evaluating teachers made an awful lot of work for them! Wragg's report is full of procedural details as well as opinions and observations-mostly negative-by primary and secondary teachers. One may fairly wonder whether this is the best way to conduct this kind of evaluation. Still, if you are interested in the nitty-gritty of one form of performance pay, contact the Teachers' Incentive Pay Project, School of Education, University of Exeter, Heavitree Road, Exeter EX1 2LU, United Kingdom; telephone 01392 264826; email [email protected].