The Education Gadfly Weekly

Timothy Speth, Steffen Saifer, and Gregory Forehand
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education
October 2008

This report evaluates the compliance of schools in five northwest states (Oregon, Washington, Montana, Idaho, and Alaska) with the parental involvement provisions of NCLB. Under one such rule, improvement plans for schools "in need of improvement" must draw on parents in three ways: notify them of the school's improvement status, provide opportunities for them to collaborate and communicate on the plan, and incorporate "effective" parental involvement activities within the plan. Such activities include involving parents in decision making, educating teachers and administrators on the value of parents' contributions, coordinating parent involvement, and identifying resources for that involvement. This study examined sundry school improvement plans against these statutory obligations and found-no big surprise-that the majority fell short. Also unsurprising was that while 75 percent of elementary schools reported parental involvement in improvement plan development, that number dropped to 68 percent for middle schools and to 57 percent for high schools. (It's long been known that parents are less apt to "involve" themselves with schools as their children get older.) We could lament these schools' noncompliance, but the problem here may be simply that NCLB's attempt to legislate parental involvement was wishful and naïve. The study isn't perfect, either; it only evaluated improvement plans (i.e. what the school said it would do) and not their implementation. You can find it here.

Elena Silva
Education Sector
November 2008

There is no doubt that students need such skills as critical thinking and applied reasoning to thrive in an increasingly information- and technology-driven world. (Of course, people also needed those skills in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.) But assessing such competencies is costly and time consuming, and therefore they are rarely measured, says this report. This we knew. Myriad critics of No Child Left Behind's testing requirements have called for better and more comprehensive assessments. Such instruments exist but are expensive. For example, the College Work and Readiness Assessment, which covers critical thinking, analytic reasoning, and problem solving, costs about $40 a pop. Compare that to $7 per head for Massachusetts's multiple choice and open-ended test, and 60 cents per student for North Carolina's multiple choice, machine-scored test. The more comprehensive and nuanced tests can't be graded by machine; this adds scorer training and subjectivity to the mix. Ultimately, Silva concludes that despite these setbacks, "new forms for assessment, as well as other yet-to-be-developed measures, will be critical for making assessment effective for educational purposes...and for accountability purposes." That might be true, but we're still left wondering how exactly she envisions that coming about. The report can be found here.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation summoned 130 or so education heavies (many of them grantees) to Seattle this week to attend the foundation's gala unveiling of its long-awaited education strategy, the culmination of an intense rethinking process spearheaded by new education director Vicki Phillips. Bill and Melinda took part themselves--and graciously treated attendees to a well-fed evening at their fabulous home.

There's much to like in the new plan, beginning with the foundation's confession that version 1.0, focused on creation of small high schools, didn't turn out very well, save for several networks of high-performance charters such as KIPP,  Yes-Prep, and Achievement First.

Version 2.0 continues the Gates emphasis on successful high-school completion and college-readiness for disadvantaged young people and adds a parallel thrust toward college completion. It features laudable--and measurable--targets for both. It includes welcome attention to developing national standards and tests, markedly strengthening education data (stay tuned for Fordham's own contribution on that front next week), enhancing research into "what works," accelerating the development and use of education technology, and strengthening teachers across multiple fronts. Incorporated therein is piloting of performance-related pay and tenure systems.

Two cheers are surely deserved. It's too early to know, however, whether a third is warranted. For what was emphasized in Seattle, and in the materials released so far, is mostly an educator's (and student's) version of education reform, not a parent's, taxpayer's, or policymaker's version. Indeed, the word "parent" scarcely appears, nor "choice," "charter," or "governance," nor much by way of politics, policy, or finance. Though Version 2.0 includes a few controversial items--national standards and performance pay foremost among them--it's generally non-confrontational and educator-pleasing, even teacher-centric. (It seemed particularly odd, given the praise lavished on KIPP et al., to find no mention in the documents of building more high-quality charter networks or the policy surroundings and human-capital arrangements in which these can flourish.)

True, not even mega-bucks Gates can attend to everything that aches in the K-12 (and now also postsecondary) sphere, and focus is a good thing. Yet surely the Foundation could move more swiftly toward its ambitious goals if it also paid close attention to the political and policy environments within which they are plausible--and if it made shrewd use of public pressure, competitive forces, alternative delivery systems, and its own financial clout. Why not, for example, stipulate that future grants will only be made in states that permit student results to be linked to teacher evaluations--now barred by New York and California, among others--and that give kids the right to exit dreadful schools for better ones? Why not insist on longitudinal data systems and the embrace of common standards and tests before anybody gets another Gates penny? You want our money; you create the policy conditions within which we believe success is likely. 

Any such hard-ball moves would lead to grousing--and it's the rare philanthropist who doesn't prefer to be thanked than denounced--but deploying a few sticks along with the carrots produces faster and more durable results. American K-12 education has an infinite capacity to absorb money, even to go through the motions of doing what the donor wants--so long as the outside money lasts. Building lasting change into the system, however, is a very different proposition. It only happens when laws, policies, and ingrained practices change. Unlike other foundations, Gates is spending enough in this area--several top staffers will have grant budgets in the hundreds of millions--to induce policy shifts if it's forceful with requirements; yet not even Gates has enough money to bring about large and lasting changes just by being generous.

That's one lesson to be drawn from the Annenberg precedent and from parts of Gates 1.0 itself. There were signs, though, that Foundation leaders may be drawing a more questionable conclusion from their earlier experience.

Bill Gates said this on Tuesday: "To be successful, a redesign requires changing the roles and responsibilities of adults, and changing the school's culture. It's clear that you can't dramatically increase college readiness by changing only the size and structure of the school."

He was, of course, admitting that the Foundation's high-profile "small schools" initiative hadn't paid off in terms of changed outcomes--and he and his team deserve plaudits for acknowledging this. But if that realization is leading his team to shun "structural" reforms in favor of classroom-level changes only--reconstructing "the learning partnership between teacher and student" as their new materials put it--they're apt to end up disappointed once again. It's true that "changing only the size and structure of the school" (my emphasis) doesn't get the job done. But neither does changing only what teachers do. The "partnership" that Gates wants to alter operates within a dense, tight net of rules, laws, contracts, bureaucratic structures, habits, licensure requirements, training regimens, HR systems, and a hundred other factors best described as policy and structure. The new Gates strategy seems to presuppose that they'll continue working on that stuff, too. But they don't say how--or how much money or elbow grease it will get. And I wonder if they're prepared for the conflict and pushback that invariably accompany any effort to disrupt the established regime.

The teacher union chieftains were polite in Seattle but they won't stay that way if the Foundation does battle with their interests. Neither, for that matter, will affluent parents and others well-served by the present system. Does Gates have the intestinal fortitude for such conflict?

Yes, the strategy contains an "advocacy" strand (and some very able people in charge of it), and it was said from the podium that "we will continue to support structural change." But you'll find scant mention of this in their documents and it appears that their internal budget allocations will treat the "helpers" more generously than the "disrupters."

Disruption per se isn't the point, of course. Durable change in outcomes is the point. Achieving "transformational results for students" is the Foundation's stated and thoroughly laudable goal. But Gates seems to be wagering most of its domestic K-12 billions on improving the teacher-student "learning partnership." That's a mighty risky road to transformation, a slippery, muddy cliff-side passage that is prone to rockslides and earthquakes and that vehicles slide right off unless the engineering is very smart and the guardrails very sturdy. Nobody should doubt the smarts of those leading the Gates education program. But you may want to withhold your third cheer for their new strategy until it becomes clear whether the policy guardrails are strong enough this time to keep them from tumbling down.  

A version of this piece appeared this morning on Forbes.com.

Economic meltdown notwithstanding, sometimes good ideas do leap from the marketplace. Exhibit A? Virtual schools, which are popping up nationwide like hybrids in San Fran. Typically founded under existing charter laws, these online learning arrangements have grown quickly and quietly to fill holes in the education market. Services are catered to students who are gifted, have special needs, live in rural areas, or are simply dissatisfied with local offerings. And the response has been positive. The largest provider in this school space, K12 Inc.*, now has 29 schools in 21 states serving 40,800 students. Chief exec Ron Packard says they're not stopping there. "I won't sleep until we're in all 50 states," quoth he. And he's not alone. DeVry, Kaplan, and Connections Academy, to name a few, are also making headway in the field. Edison is entering, too. But not everyone is gaga for virtual learning. Teachers unions have criticized the web-based schools for "no or extremely limited direct personal interaction." And let's admit that there are some sleazy operators running mediocre e-schools in too many places. Some dirty bathwater ought to be discarded--but please not the baby. These schools take "personal" to a whole new level with individualized learning and curricula--and cost less than their location-based brethren to boot. It's no wonder this field is getting more competitive. 

*Disclaimer: Checker Finn is on their education advisory committee.

"Virtual school chalks up gains," by Veronica Dagher, The Wall Street Journal, November 5, 2008

Diana Anaya came to America to get an education, and she's not doing so well--at least according to the new No Child Left Behind regulations, which base graduation rates on four-year diploma earners. By that metric, Ayana, who should have graduated last year, is lagging. A closer look, however, reveals an honor roll student who takes care of her younger sister and works nights to pay rent and put food on the table. And she's not alone. Many Latino youths take longer than the standard four years to graduate as they balance school with family demands and job pressures. That the new regs ignore their challenges seems unfair. Accountability is a good thing, but so is a drizzle of flexibility on top.

"Graduating ASAP, if Not on State Timeline," by Theresa Vargas, Washington Post, November 11, 2008

Bravo, New Orleans. Having given charter schools room to grow, local and state education officials are now hammering out the details of an oversight system--and not a moment too soon. Since roughly 60 percent of students in New Orleans attend charters, ensuring that these are quality learning venues is an essential next step. According to Ken Campbell, director of the state's charter-school office, the new evaluation tools will include clearer expectations for student progress and will use both quantitative and qualitative evaluations to examine school culture and climate as well as test scores. The key, however, will be making it easier to chuck out the bad apples. And the city's 47 charters are due to come up for renewal in the next couple years. No details as of yet, but state superintendent Paul Pastorek foresees a harsher metric. "We now have a lot of demand for opening charter schools in New Orleans," he explains, "so I think we can apply more scrutiny and afford to be tougher on grading the quality of schools." Kudos to that sentiment. We'll have to wait and see if he's right.

"System sought to monitor charter schools," by Sarah Carr, New Orleans Times-Picayune, November 9, 2008

Elena Silva
Education Sector
November 2008

There is no doubt that students need such skills as critical thinking and applied reasoning to thrive in an increasingly information- and technology-driven world. (Of course, people also needed those skills in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.) But assessing such competencies is costly and time consuming, and therefore they are rarely measured, says this report. This we knew. Myriad critics of No Child Left Behind's testing requirements have called for better and more comprehensive assessments. Such instruments exist but are expensive. For example, the College Work and Readiness Assessment, which covers critical thinking, analytic reasoning, and problem solving, costs about $40 a pop. Compare that to $7 per head for Massachusetts's multiple choice and open-ended test, and 60 cents per student for North Carolina's multiple choice, machine-scored test. The more comprehensive and nuanced tests can't be graded by machine; this adds scorer training and subjectivity to the mix. Ultimately, Silva concludes that despite these setbacks, "new forms for assessment, as well as other yet-to-be-developed measures, will be critical for making assessment effective for educational purposes...and for accountability purposes." That might be true, but we're still left wondering how exactly she envisions that coming about. The report can be found here.

Timothy Speth, Steffen Saifer, and Gregory Forehand
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education
October 2008

This report evaluates the compliance of schools in five northwest states (Oregon, Washington, Montana, Idaho, and Alaska) with the parental involvement provisions of NCLB. Under one such rule, improvement plans for schools "in need of improvement" must draw on parents in three ways: notify them of the school's improvement status, provide opportunities for them to collaborate and communicate on the plan, and incorporate "effective" parental involvement activities within the plan. Such activities include involving parents in decision making, educating teachers and administrators on the value of parents' contributions, coordinating parent involvement, and identifying resources for that involvement. This study examined sundry school improvement plans against these statutory obligations and found-no big surprise-that the majority fell short. Also unsurprising was that while 75 percent of elementary schools reported parental involvement in improvement plan development, that number dropped to 68 percent for middle schools and to 57 percent for high schools. (It's long been known that parents are less apt to "involve" themselves with schools as their children get older.) We could lament these schools' noncompliance, but the problem here may be simply that NCLB's attempt to legislate parental involvement was wishful and naïve. The study isn't perfect, either; it only evaluated improvement plans (i.e. what the school said it would do) and not their implementation. You can find it here.