Anyone who thinks that the solution to the problems of big-city school districts is putting the mayor in charge may be disheartened by a trio of articles in the most recent issue of Education Next. An essay by University of Maryland professor Jim Cibulka examines Washington, DC (where Mayor Anthony Williams won the ability to appoint four members of the nine member board in 2000) and Baltimore (where a long history of mayoral control over schools was ended in 1997 when the state stepped in to try to rehabilitate the dysfunctional system). It offers a fascinating look at the powers a mayor can marshal in an effort to reverse the fortunes of a big-city school district, as well as the limits of those powers. In companion articles, Patrick Ryan looks at what happened when the mayor took over the school district in Cleveland and Paul Hill weighs the whole idea of searching for a white knight, preferably one from outside the education establishment, to rescue a struggling school district. Three other pieces in the same issue of the journal look at how public schools and districts in Michigan, Arizona, and Milwaukee have responded to the challenge of competition. While the authors disagree about how much public schools will improve in response to competition from charter schools or private school vouchers, they all acknowledge that the kinds of choice we have today will not be magic bullets that solve all the problems of urban school districts. You can read articles by Jim Cibulka, Patrick Ryan, and Paul Hill under the heading of "Round and Round They Go: Can New Management Save Urban School Districts?" and articles by Rick Hess; David Arsen, David Plank and Gary Sykes; and Bob Maranto under "When Schools Compete: Does School Choice Push Public Schools to Improve" in the Winter 2001 issue of Education Next.
Frederick M. Hess, Progressive Policy Institute, November 2001
America needs more and better teachers and many education reformers are concerned that our existing system of teacher certification is contributing to the problem. How? By forcing aspiring teachers to jump through hoops and hurdles that take time and money but do little to ensure that those who make it through are qualified to teach. In this paper, released a few days ago by the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), U. Va. Professor Rick Hess argues that teacher certification is flawed but that so are the remedies proposed by most reformers: either making certification tougher or abolishing certification altogether. Hess begins by rebutting three assumptions that are made by supporters of the existing approach to certification: that the training one receives while getting certified is so important that uncertified people cannot perform adequately, that certification weeds out unsuitable candidates, and that the existence of certification makes teaching more "professional." He argues that certification cannot be justified unless there are clear standards by which teachers can demonstrate their competence, but notes that this is not true of education today. Instead, Hess proposes what he calls a competitive model of teacher certification, in which teaching candidates who have a college degree, and who can pass a test of subject knowledge and a criminal background check should be allowed to teach and all other regulations limiting entry into the profession are jettisoned. Unlike some who have argued for ending teacher certification, Hess maintains that we need to recognize that most of these would-be teachers still need training and preparation, both in the beginning and throughout their careers. Instead of creating one-size-fits-all regulatory barriers, Hess argues for giving districts and schools more flexibility to make their own arrangements to ensure that new teachers are appropriately prepared, inducted, and supervised. To those who say that schools and districts will inevitably under-invest in new teacher preparation and induction, Hess proposes state and/or federal funding of teacher development and professional induction. Under this system, ed schools would still exist, but their offerings would no longer be regulated by state law; since matriculation in the programs will be optional for prospective teachers, the folks who run teacher preparation programs will do their best to ensure that they add value to teaching candidates. Once they begin teaching, new teachers will experience training that is tailored to their needs in a particular district or school. By bringing teacher training back into the picture - but not necessarily entrusting it to the usual places that claim to do it - this paper makes an important contribution to the debate over how best to ensure the quality of our nation's teaching force. Copies are available on the Progressive Policy Institute website (www.ppionline.org) or by calling PPI at 202-547-0001.
Jennifer Buckingham, Centre for Independent Studies, 2001
In this 100-page book, Jennifer Buckingham, a policy analyst with the Australia-based Centre for Independent Studies, argues that Australia should move to a tax-credit approach as the mechanism by which to pay for school choice. She offers familiar arguments for a choice-based system (freedom, fairness, better schools, etc.) rather than a government monopoly. She notes that Australia's current arrangements for subsidizing private schools are inadequate and politically unstable. She contends that charter schools are a "stop-gap" because they're not truly independent; that vouchers make private schools vulnerable to excessive government regulation; and that - following the reasoning of some American libertarians - tax credits will bring the most advantages and fewest risks. She then sets forth a number of variants on the tax-credit theme (including the refundable kind that maximizes its value to low-income families) and explains the pros and cons of each. If you'd like to have a look, the ISBN is 1864320605. You can order it for A$21.90 from the Centre, which is most easily accessed via the Internet at http://www.cis.org.au.
National Center for Education Statistics, November 2001
The latest news from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is not good: American schoolchildren still don't know much science. In grades 4 and 8, they knew as little in 2000 as in 1996. In grade 12, they knew less. Indeed, Education Secretary Rod Paige termed the high school seniors' faltering performance a "morally significant" decline. Fewer than one in five of them scores at or above NAEP's "proficient" level in science; barely half even attain the "basic" level. The scientific attainments of minority youths are bleaker still: in 12th grade, only 22% of black students and 30% of Hispanics reach "basic." (Recall, too, Jay Greene's study of high school graduation rates (described above) showing that barely half of minority youngsters complete high school on schedule. Since NAEP tests only in-school 12th graders, one can reasonably estimate that just 10-15% of black and Hispanic young people in the relevant age cohort are minimally functional in science.) Following the pattern we have seen in TIMSS, U.S. 4th and 8th grade science results are somewhat less grim, with roughly two thirds of those youngsters performing at or above the "basic" level and almost one-third attaining "proficient" (or better). But it's nothing to boast about. This report includes plenty more data, including results for the 40 states (and 5 other jurisdictions) that participated. The variation is considerable, ranging from a few states where 35% or more of students are proficient to others where this is true of fewer than 15% of the youngsters. You will also find some explanatory information, such as relationships between student NAEP scores and their teachers' college majors, course taking patterns, etc. Summaries, commentaries, electronic copies and ordering information are all available if you surf to http://www.nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/science/results/.
Public Education Network, November 2001
This guide presents the Public Education Network's "blueprint of engagement" for local education funds (LEFs), which are independent "nonprofit, community-based organizations who [sic] work to improve student achievement for all children attending public schools." PEN identifies six interrelated ways that LEFs can intervene in their communities in pursuit of systemic change: community dialogue; constituency building; engaging practitioners; collaboration with districts; policy analysis; and legal strategies. A chapter is devoted to each type of intervention and includes examples from PEN initiatives - ranging from training for school board members to an empowerment program for librarians - lessons learned, tools and resources. Anyone seeking a window into the work of LEFs or advice on how to go about pushing the levers of change in a community may want to take a look. See http://www.publiceducation.org/interventions or order a copy of the guide from the Public Education Network, 601 13th Street, NW, Suite 900 N, Washington, DC 20005; 202-628-7460.
William W. Cutler III, 2000
This 290-page monograph by Temple University education historian William W. Cutler III provides a history of the tug-of-war between parents and educators for dominance in U.S. K-12 education. It turns out to be quite an interesting saga, and Cutler does not shy from drawing contemporary lessons from it. "A cycle of failure will repeat," he predicts, "if the home and the school continue to follow their historical paths. What began as an adversarial relationship has come full circle; too often parents and teachers are ready to believe the worst about each other today. Breaking the cycle begins with the knowledge that families and schools are farther apart than ever before...." The ISBN is 0226132161. (The book came out in 2000, though we just discovered it.) The publisher is The University of Chicago Press, which can be found electronically at http://www.press.uchicago.edu and in reality at 5801 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637.
Last month, much to my surprise, both the Education Gadfly and The Wall Street Journal touted the new Standard and Poor's School Evaluation Service. Such praise is premature. S&P has many strengths, but school evaluation has not yet proven to be one of them.
The S&P School Evaluation Service has posted online reports about each school district in Michigan and Pennsylvania, reports that include 1500 education and financial variables under broad headings like student results, learning environments, spending and demographics. The reports describe each district's strengths and weaknesses and compare them with state averages and "peer districts." Participating states reportedly pay $2-2.5 million per year for the service. (To see the reports for yourself, go to http://www.ses.standardandpoors.com.)
Since 1918, S&P has been a leader in providing no-nonsense information to the financial industry. The firm's reputation for objective and hard-hitting analysis is such that many institutional investors, pension funds and the like are barred from investing in bonds that lack an "investment grade rating" from either S&P or one of its two main competitors. The firm's recent foray into school assessment, on the other hand, is a bland and pricey re-hash of information already available from many states and school districts. It is not clear to me what value S&P is adding at this point in their product's development. Praise for the S&P service seems to be based more upon wishful thinking than objective analysis of its value.
It would be a great service to the public if S&P or some other private firm offered a hard-hitting, objective analysis of school and district performance. Many would appreciate a service that simplified the data that are already provided by many school districts and state education departments and that produced a simple, easy to understand rating of performance.
That is the sort of thing that S&P offers in its core business. The firm is an industry leader in municipal bond ratings. In that business, S&P's professionals analyze a myriad of complex financial, economic and political factors and determine the risk associated with the bonds of a state, county, city, school district or other public agency. An investor can be confident that a California school district bond rated "A" has generally the same risk as an "A" rated bond from a New Jersey sewer district, and less risk than the bonds from an Illinois county holding a BBB rating.
When S&P issues a bond rating, they do so with a limited amount of verbiage. They most certainly do not try to explain the complexities of municipal government or offer much by way of contextual information. One will not see statements like "this entity is rated B, but it is doing above average compared to cities with similar populations." Unfortunately, the S&P school evaluation product offers way too much of that sort of editorial embroidery. It compares schools and districts with others of "similar socio-economic status" and proximity to metro areas. If you live in a city, and your child has "low SES," this product may very well reinforce low expectations for your child's school.
Nor has S&P attempted to present a simplified rating of school district performance. They simply report that a particular district is well above average, above average, below average or well below average compared with other school districts in its own state. Good luck trying to compare schools in Michigan to schools in Pennsylvania using the S&P service. You are also on your own if you want to know whether "average" in either of those states means "good enough."
As a private firm, S&P is free to design its own product as it sees fit. If there is demand, the firm will do well financially. Well and good. But what accounts for the willingness - even ardor - of governors to spend taxpayer money on this service as it now stands? Michigan, for example, has a pretty good website of its own. Since S&P is totally reliant on the state for the data it presents, there is nothing on the S&P site that is not also available on the Michigan site. To my eye, the state's site is easier to navigate and more concise in its presentation of data. All that S&P seems to add is the comparison to state averages and to districts of similar demographics. One imagines the state education department could easily add that to its own site for a lot less than the state is paying S&P.
The official state site also does a better job of presenting data for individual schools. S&P's service focuses on districts and presents a very limited set of indicators for individual schools. In this regard, S&P appears to be behind the times, as most credible and promising improvement efforts are directed at school-level, as opposed to district-level reform.
Finally, there are some disturbing and unexplained anomalies in the S&P data presentation. For example, an unexplained bar chart reports that the Detroit public schools' graduation rate went from 30% to over 80% and back down to 40% over a three-year period. This inexplicable and improbable development appears on the state site as well. S&P's attorneys have inserted the necessary disclaimers about potential inaccuracies in the data provided to S&P by the state, yet one wonders about the value of a system that simply redeploys the state's information, inconsistencies and all.
Let's hope that S&P is planning to become more forthright with this product and to speak more plainly about school performance. Of course, such candor might harm the existing business relationships that S&P and its corporate parent, McGraw-Hill, have with many school districts and states. But it would be courageous and worthy of the Education Gadfly's - and The Wall Street Journal's - approval. Similarly, let's hope that the leaders of states that are considering purchasing S&P's school evaluation service are willing to ask tough questions about the value that S&P is adding to school reform efforts.
Raymond Domanico is Senior Education Advisor to the Metro NY Industrial Areas Foundation, a network of churches, parents, tenant associations and schools working to improve life in the New York City area. He has studied the public education system in New York for over twenty years from a variety of perspectives, including director of data analysis for the New York City Board of Education, director of the Center for Educational Innovation at the Manhattan Institute, and executive director of the Public Education Association. The opinions expressed herein are his own.
To read our blurb on the S&P school district reports in the October 24th issue of the Education Gadfly, go to http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=85#1287.
NB: Last week, Just for the Kids (an Austin nonprofit that uses state accountability data to examine school performance), the Education Commission of the States, and the University of Texas announced the establishment of the National Center for Educational Accountability. The new center will focus on the effective use of school and student data and the identification of best practices. For more, see "National Center for Educational Accountability Established to Achieve Excellence in Public Schools."
Under a new accountability system being proposed by the Florida Department of Education, the progress of individual students will be tracked from year to year and this information will be used to determine letter grades for schools. An accountability system based on annual learning gains has been a major goal of Governor Jeb Bush. It became possible to implement one after the state test, the FCAT, was expanded last year to all grades between 3rd and 10th. In other accountability systems, the test scores of the best students can mask those of students who are struggling. In Florida's new system, every student must improve or maintain his score for the school to earn the maximum points, and the gains or losses made by the lowest-performing students will have additional weight in the school grading formula. In December, the state board of education (now made up of the governor and his Cabinet) will vote on the proposed system. See "State may tie schools' grades to individual students' work," by Steve Harrison and Holly Stepp, The Miami Herald, November 9, 2001.
A warm and reasonably accurate profile of E.D. Hirsch appeared in last Sunday's Washington Post Magazine under the subtitle "How a U-Va. Professor, denounced as elitist and ethnocentric, became a prophet of the school standards movement." The article explains how the gentleman scholar of psycholinguistics and literature from Memphis came to write Cultural Literacy in 1987, suffer attacks from the "progressive" establishment, and then be embraced by the late Albert Shanker, president of the AFT from 1974 until 1997, helping make him a darling of the standards movement, including conservatives such as Kirk Schroder, president of the Virginia Board of Education. For more see "Up Against the Establishment," by Drew Lindsay, The Washington Post Magazine, November 11, 2001
The report submitted by Edison Schools on Philadelphia's public education system paints a somewhat misleading picture of the condition that city's schools are in, writes Mike Casserly of the Council of the Great City Schools in an op-ed in The Philadelphia Inquirer. While agreeing that schools in the City of Brotherly Love need dramatic improvement, Casserly complains that the report presents incomplete data and makes unfair comparisons. While Edison indicates that scores on the SAT-9 are below basic in middle and high schools, the report fails to mention that elementary schools, where the district has focused its Children Achieving reforms, are at or above national norms. Edison says that the system made "limited gains" during Philadelphia's reforms but, says Casserly, the percentage of fourth graders reading at or above basic levels rose from 43.7 percent to 59.7 percent in four years. He also argues that Edison's comparison of Philadelphia with other urban districts is skewed by the choice of comparison districts (Clark County (Las Vegas), Broward County (Ft. Lauderdale) and Houston), which are very different from Philadelphia demographically, structurally, and regionally. While noting that the Philadelphia community is ready for change, Casserly chides Edison for missing an opportunity to build public trust with a fair assessment of its schools. "Company's report doesn't inspire trust," by Michael Casserly, The Philadelphia Inquirer, November 11, 2001.