Robert C. Pianta, Jay Belsky, Renate Houts, Fred Morrison, The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research Network Science Volume 315, March 30, 2007
Robert C. Pianta, Jay Belsky, Renate Houts, Fred Morrison, The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research Network Science
Volume 315, March 30, 2007
This short article and the more in-depth data and analysis findings describe the results of a set of intricately structured observations of more than 1,000 first-, third-, and fifth-graders across more than 1,000 schools (and ten U.S. cities). The NIH-funded research team, which precisely monitored 44 types of behavior, found that teachers spent the bulk of their time on literacy and math (e.g., 62 percent in fifth grade) and only a small portion on social studies and the sciences (in fifth grade, 11 percent and 13 percent respectively). Perhaps this is why USA Today quotes one education school professor complaining that the study "ignores the larger reality of mandates such as the federal No Child Left Behind law," which might be pushing teachers to narrow the curriculum (see here). And the authors themselves can't resist editorializing that their results support "arguments that a focus on standards-based reform and teacher credentialing may lead to instruction that is overly broad and thin." But such conclusions are careless: 75 percent of this study's classroom observations took place during 2001-02, just as NCLB was being born, and the authors make no attempt to compare teacher behavior before and after NCLB. But other conclusions are worth pondering. For example, the "emotional climate" of classrooms was generally positive, though teachers spent the bulk of their time lecturing and little of it providing feedback or small-group instruction. Also, classroom ratings were not correlated with the teacher's degree status or experience and, unsurprisingly, poor students were less likely to receive the best instruction. It's an intriguing article, available online here ($10; free for AAAS members).
Henry Levin, Clive Belfield, Peter Muennig, Cecilia Rouse
Teachers College, Columbia University
January 2007
It's taken for granted that improving education boosts the economy and saves taxpayer dollars down the road. But in case anyone still doubts this, researchers at Teachers College have put together a cost-benefit analysis, though a dubious one at that. They claim that for a certain set of policy interventions "proven" to reduce high school drop-out rates, "the benefits are 2.5 times greater than the costs." To arrive at that number, they subtract the average per-student cost of those interventions from the gains in tax revenues and declines in welfare expenditures, crime, etc. that occur when at-risk students graduate high school. It's all pretty straightforward, but one wonders whether the supposedly proven interventions--two pre-school programs, two small-class models, and an across-the-board teacher salary increase of 10 percent--are really as effective as the authors believe. The section detailing the five interventions is among the shortest in the 75-page "Technical Appendix" attached to the report. That's because (as some have already pointed out) the authors relied on only one or two studies per model and then extrapolate the benefits if taken national. Yet if there's one thing we know from research and experience in education, it's that promising results for targeted interventions are rarely replicated when those interventions are scaled. The report offers a valuable reminder of why high school grads are important to the economy, but readers should be skeptical about its overall conclusions. Read the report here.
Karin Chenoweth
Harvard Education Press
2007
The author, Karin Chenoweth, an education writer who from 1999 to 2004 produced columns for the Washington Post and is now at Education Trust, knew before penning this book that poor and minority kids, when taught well, were capable of achieving academic success. She had lots of anecdotes to support her view, but precious little data. So, in typical Ed Trust style, Chenoweth decided to comb through the numbers, find the schools that were posting high test scores with populations of poor and minority students, and then report on them. This book is the result. It profiles fifteen neighborhood public schools (the author, not wanting to report on any schools that "select" students, did not evaluate charter schools) across the nation. Some are urban, some rural; some have traditional calendars, some year-round; some have good facilities, some poor. But they all share certain attributes which, Chenoweth posits, are key parts of their success. They do not teach to state tests; they have high expectations and welcome accountability; they embrace and use data; they pack the school day and use time wisely; and they make decisions based on what's good for kids, not adults. The "demography is destiny" crowd--the folks over at the Economic Policy Institute, the creators of Education Week's latest Quality Counts report, Charles Murray--would do well to read Chenoweth's book and see for themselves how students of all racial and socioeconomic backgrounds, given the right support, can do well in the classroom. And educators of all persuasions could glean many ideas and inspiration from the schools profiled herein. For more information about this forthcoming book, see here.
Until recently, Mike Merrifield served as the Colorado House Education Committee chairman. Then he sent an email to another state legislator in which he opined that "there's a special place in hell" for supporters of charter schools. "They deserve it!" By Merrifield's standard, Gadfly--who, as a Dipteran, can only expect to live about 20 days total--will be a Hades tenant in the not-so-distant future. Where, exactly, in the nine levels of hell will he find himself? Unfortunately, Dante's Inferno Test yielded few answers; lots of questions about sin, very few about standards-based reform. So while we may not know Gadfly's position in the realm of eternal suffering, we do know that Merrifield lost his chairmanship. Do unto others, Mike.
"Rep. Merrifield's e-mail rips charter supporters," by April M. Washington, Rocky Mountain News, March 30, 2007
"Ed chairman quits over e-mail: Merrifield wrote charter backers have 'place in hell'," by April M. Washington and Alan Gathright, Rocky Mountain News, March 31, 2007
"Panel boss urged to quit over e-mail: Dem says she's not budging," by April M. Washington, Rocky Mountain News, April 3, 2007
Charter schools in Florida are on shaky ground. On one hand, they're expanding like crazy. About 98,000 students have signed up for spots in over 300 Sunshine State charters over the past decade. On the other hand, the quality of many of those schools is questionable. The Orlando Sentinel reported that in 2006, five of the state's 21 failing schools were charters--close to 25 percent--even though charter schools enroll a mere 3 percent of the state's students. What's worse, a whopping 43 percent of charters don't receive grades from Florida's accountability system, mostly because they are exempt because they have fewer than 30 students per grade level. It's no secret that the previous administration in Tallahassee put parental satisfaction and competition before top-down accountability (former Governor Jeb Bush was far more zealous in his promotion of unregulated voucher programs than charter schools). But a recent St. Petersburg Times editorial shows what can happen when charter schools aren't held to high academic standards: their traditional enemies grow emboldened. Unless Florida wants to repeat the Ohio story (see above), it better start holding charter schools accountable and uprooting the low-performing kudzu.
"Charter Schools: Missing the Grade," Orlando Sentinel Special Report
New Yorkers upset about the specter of unionized charter schools can at least expect such schools to be welcomed by the unions themselves, right? Not! Consider the plight of Green Dot, a chain of unionized charter schools whose proposed expansion in L.A. has been shut down by union-backed members of the Los Angeles Unified School Board. The vote "infuriated" board member and Green Dot supporter Mike Lansing, whose constituents include the families in high-poverty and troubled Watts the new schools would have served. "It's really disappointing that we keep talking about wanting to do what's best for children first, when without a doubt that vote was about a teachers union and three board members not having the backbone to stand up and do the right thing for kids over their ties to the union." Green Dot will appeal to the county, which will almost certainly approve the schools (they meet all necessary criteria under the state's charter law). But the local board's machinations will mean at least a one-year delay, leading the L.A. Times editorial page to conclude, "Once again, the losers are the students." Actually, we would argue that the "losers" are the unions, more concerned about power and politics than what's good for kids.
"L.A. Unified rejects charter expansion," by Joel Rubin and Adrian G. Uribarri, Los Angeles Times, March 30, 2007
"LAUSD puts politics before kids," Los Angeles Times, April 1, 2007
As policymakers wrestle with No Child Left Behind's reauthorization and educators struggle to comply with its spirit, it is clear that both communities are increasingly serious about seeking out rigorous and useful research. But education professors Kevin Welner and Alex Molnar fretted in a recent Education Week back-pager that policymakers are turning to "slickly produced" research by "ideologically driven" think tanks rather than studies being conducted and sanctioned by the nation's professional education research community.
For those eager to familiarize themselves more broadly with "peer-reviewed" education scholarship, an exceptional opportunity will be presented next week at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) in Chicago. More than 12,000 scholars will gather to consider a wealth of papers and analyses that have been vetted by their peers.
AERA offers the chance for academics to demonstrate why, as Welner and Molnar suggest, policymakers would be well-advised to look to them to tackle "significant research questions" with "original and important work." To help first-time attendees identify some of this promising work, we present this friendly user's guide.
First, for those policymakers interested in Creolist perspectives on social change and the current status of the Whig party, we strongly suggest catching these papers: "The Ebonics Phenomenon, Language Planning, and the Hegemony of Standard English," "Beyond the Anglicist and the Creolist Debate and Toward Social Change," and "‘The Whig Party Don't Exist in My Hood': Knowledge, Reality, and Education in the Hip-Hop Nation."
Those more interested in the looming impact of immigration on instruction or NCLB-required assessment will surely want to catch the session "Asserting Silenced Voices in Policy Debates Over (Im)migrants and (Im)migration." This features the analyses: "Exposing Contradictions: Students ‘Talk Back' to Discourses on (Im)migration" and "Immigrant Identity and Racial Formations: A LatCrit Theoretical Analysis Case Study."
Promising a rather different take on immigration is the provocatively titled "Race and Space in Education," with its undertones of bilingual education on Mars and featuring papers such as "Citizenship, Migration, and Space" and "Education Policy, Space, and the ‘Colonial Present.'" (Confession: We're not entirely sure just what the "colonial present" is--we don't think it involves beribboned pewter mugs from Williamsburg, but participants will need to attend the session to be sure.)
Those seeking something more relevant for professional development may want to check out the session "Spirituality and Education" in which professors and doctoral students at honest-to-goodness colleges and universities will present "Accessing the Wisdom of Spirit as Professional Development," "Anti-racist Education, Critical Race Theory, and ‘Respiritualization,'" "Finding the Spirit Within, Answering the Call to Teach," and "Peace in Every Breath: College Students Surprise Themselves as They Defuse Their Anger."
A don't-miss opportunity for scholars and attendees to celebrate their own awesomeness is the session: "Stop Moving My What?! Critical and Reflective Thinking in Self-Study." While some may fret that they lack the background to understand the finer points outlined in the featured paper, "‘Stop Moving My Cheese!' Scurrying Through a Maze of Challenges in Developing Reflective Thinking of Preservice Teachers" the session description promises that the "self-study practitioners" will demonstrate how to use "a wealth of data such as journal dialogues, portfolio artifacts, evaluations and e-mail correspondence" to develop "inner skills of reflection or ‘pedagogical thoughtfulness.'"
Another not-to-miss session is that on "Asset-Based Research on Native Peoples," featuring the study "The Educational Lives of Alaska Native Alumni of the University of Alaska-Anchorage." Now as appealing as this sounds, we do find ourselves wondering, Where is the concern for the educational lives of Alaska Native alums from UA-Fairbanks--much less community colleges!? Simple oversight? Or something more sinister? Attendees should consider themselves forewarned. To guard against such careless omissions, we suggest pairing this panel with the session on "Centering the Overlooked Issues in Multicultural Teacher Education: AIDS, Accent, Adoption, (Dis)Ability, and Poverty."
To be sure, there will also be more pedestrian work on teacher quality, instruction, assessment, and so forth. But the unfortunate truth is that session titles and past experience suggest that such work will constitute but a modest portion of the scholarship on display. Worth noting, and perhaps providing a disheartening bit of context, is that all of the above papers and sessions were drawn from a one-hour perusal of one randomly selected day of the conference (Tuesday, for those who are curious). That's why this preview doesn't flag sessions such as "The Subversive Media Practice of Decolonization: The Testimonial and Pedagogical Work of Aboriginal Women Filmmakers."
Until serious scholars invest more energy in policing the work that enjoys their imprimatur, it's likely to remain an uphill struggle for quality education research to command the respect or have the impact it deserves.
After New York's budget negotiations ended, charter school supporters exuded both cheers and moans. The good news: Lawmakers agreed to expand the state's charter school cap by 100 schools, bringing the total to 200. That's progress, to be sure. But Governor Spitzer originally asked for a 150-school extension, and his initial plan would've allowed New York City School's Chancellor Joel Klein to open 50 charter schools without final approval from the legislatively appointed Board of Regents. The final budget does not give Klein that authority. And then there's the provision that those charter schools enrolling over 250 students in their first two years must unionize. It's still unclear exactly what such unionization entails, though our sources (see here) tell us that it will involve the UFT, though not the citywide UFT contract. Regardless, it's a major attack on one thing that makes charter schools unique, and often successful--little or no union meddling. New York City Mayor Bloomberg had this to say about it: "It is a disgrace that when you have such demand [for charter schools], there's anybody at any level of government who's trying to limit parents' options... If they're not standing up for parents, I'm just going to point it out to everybody." Everybody now includes you.
"Spitzer Wins a Victory on Charters," by Jacob Gershman, New York Sun, March 30, 2007
"Mike Blasts Curbs On Charter Schools," by David Seifman and David Andreatta, New York Post, April 3, 2007
Newly elected Ohio Governor Ted Strickland is set to strangle charter schools in his state. Calling charters "a dismal failure," he would impose a moratorium on new schools. (Hence, no KIPP Academy for Columbus, as is currently planned.) Worse, he would bind charters to "all other state laws and rules pertaining to public schools, school districts, and boards of education," thereby forcing charters to adhere to union contracts, teacher licensure, etc. This would leave charters with two choices: abandon their very essence and follow the law (i.e., become more like traditional public schools), or shutter their doors (see here). Of course, the Ohio charter movement isn't without fault here. It has consistently failed to police itself, as with the Harte Crossroads fiasco. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water, Mr. Governor. Ohio public schools are hardly a model of efficiency and high academic achievement. And Ohioans like the idea of educational choice, and charters in particular (some of which are doing very well--Citizen's Academy in Cleveland, ISUS and Mound Street Academies in Dayton, and the Graham School in Columbus, for example). So force authorizers to do their jobs (i.e., close bad schools), but don't tighten the noose on good schools that tens of thousands of children and their families have chosen, and then force students back into the state's failed public system.
"Job One in Ohio," Wall Street Journal, March 29, 2007
"Strickland targets charter schools, vouchers," by William Hershey and Laura A. Bischoff, Dayton Daily News, March 14, 2007
Henry Levin, Clive Belfield, Peter Muennig, Cecilia Rouse
Teachers College, Columbia University
January 2007
It's taken for granted that improving education boosts the economy and saves taxpayer dollars down the road. But in case anyone still doubts this, researchers at Teachers College have put together a cost-benefit analysis, though a dubious one at that. They claim that for a certain set of policy interventions "proven" to reduce high school drop-out rates, "the benefits are 2.5 times greater than the costs." To arrive at that number, they subtract the average per-student cost of those interventions from the gains in tax revenues and declines in welfare expenditures, crime, etc. that occur when at-risk students graduate high school. It's all pretty straightforward, but one wonders whether the supposedly proven interventions--two pre-school programs, two small-class models, and an across-the-board teacher salary increase of 10 percent--are really as effective as the authors believe. The section detailing the five interventions is among the shortest in the 75-page "Technical Appendix" attached to the report. That's because (as some have already pointed out) the authors relied on only one or two studies per model and then extrapolate the benefits if taken national. Yet if there's one thing we know from research and experience in education, it's that promising results for targeted interventions are rarely replicated when those interventions are scaled. The report offers a valuable reminder of why high school grads are important to the economy, but readers should be skeptical about its overall conclusions. Read the report here.
Karin Chenoweth
Harvard Education Press
2007
The author, Karin Chenoweth, an education writer who from 1999 to 2004 produced columns for the Washington Post and is now at Education Trust, knew before penning this book that poor and minority kids, when taught well, were capable of achieving academic success. She had lots of anecdotes to support her view, but precious little data. So, in typical Ed Trust style, Chenoweth decided to comb through the numbers, find the schools that were posting high test scores with populations of poor and minority students, and then report on them. This book is the result. It profiles fifteen neighborhood public schools (the author, not wanting to report on any schools that "select" students, did not evaluate charter schools) across the nation. Some are urban, some rural; some have traditional calendars, some year-round; some have good facilities, some poor. But they all share certain attributes which, Chenoweth posits, are key parts of their success. They do not teach to state tests; they have high expectations and welcome accountability; they embrace and use data; they pack the school day and use time wisely; and they make decisions based on what's good for kids, not adults. The "demography is destiny" crowd--the folks over at the Economic Policy Institute, the creators of Education Week's latest Quality Counts report, Charles Murray--would do well to read Chenoweth's book and see for themselves how students of all racial and socioeconomic backgrounds, given the right support, can do well in the classroom. And educators of all persuasions could glean many ideas and inspiration from the schools profiled herein. For more information about this forthcoming book, see here.
Robert C. Pianta, Jay Belsky, Renate Houts, Fred Morrison, The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research Network Science
Volume 315, March 30, 2007
This short article and the more in-depth data and analysis findings describe the results of a set of intricately structured observations of more than 1,000 first-, third-, and fifth-graders across more than 1,000 schools (and ten U.S. cities). The NIH-funded research team, which precisely monitored 44 types of behavior, found that teachers spent the bulk of their time on literacy and math (e.g., 62 percent in fifth grade) and only a small portion on social studies and the sciences (in fifth grade, 11 percent and 13 percent respectively). Perhaps this is why USA Today quotes one education school professor complaining that the study "ignores the larger reality of mandates such as the federal No Child Left Behind law," which might be pushing teachers to narrow the curriculum (see here). And the authors themselves can't resist editorializing that their results support "arguments that a focus on standards-based reform and teacher credentialing may lead to instruction that is overly broad and thin." But such conclusions are careless: 75 percent of this study's classroom observations took place during 2001-02, just as NCLB was being born, and the authors make no attempt to compare teacher behavior before and after NCLB. But other conclusions are worth pondering. For example, the "emotional climate" of classrooms was generally positive, though teachers spent the bulk of their time lecturing and little of it providing feedback or small-group instruction. Also, classroom ratings were not correlated with the teacher's degree status or experience and, unsurprisingly, poor students were less likely to receive the best instruction. It's an intriguing article, available online here ($10; free for AAAS members).
