Nine states and the District of Columbia have submitted plans to the U.S. Department of Education to meet their obligations under the Every Student Succeeds Act. And by May 3, seven more will likely do the same. These submissions describe how states will satisfy a number of ESSA’s requirements, including those concerning testing, accountability, and school improvement. This lattermost issue, which seeks to fix—or better yet replace—failing schools, is among the most important. Yet, in this area, these first plans are a very mixed bag.

Under the law, states must identify and take action on two types of troubled schools: those requiring “comprehensive support and improvement” (the lowest achieving 5 percent of Title I schools, plus high schools with low graduation rates), and those that need “targeted improvement” because they routinely fail a particular group such as low-income, minority, or special education students.

ESSA includes criteria states should use for placing schools in these two buckets, but it is intentionally silent on what they should do about them—even when schools require “rigorous intervention” because less substantial corrections, like counseling and professional development, haven’t lead to adequate improvement after a specified period of time (decided by the state, but no more than four years).

This deference to states is a major change from No Child Left Behind, the law that ESSA replaced. Through School Improvement Grants, NCLB only permitted a static set of four improvement models. Over time, however, this mandated menu of options “had no significant impacts on math or reading test scores, high school graduation, or college enrollment.”

Learning from this mistake, ESSA requires states to set aside 7 percent of their Title I funds to turn around low-performing schools using “evidence-based improvements” of their choosing. It opens the door to a wide variety of strategies, and specifically authorizes funding to flow through innovative governance structures—not just traditional districts—en route to schools.

Many in the education reform community had hoped that states would take advantage of this flexibility to design new—or at least adopt already existing—innovative and inspired methods of improving failing schools, especially for schools that require “rigorous intervention.” (See, for example, Nelson Smith’s and my recent brief, Leveraging ESSA to Support Quality-School Growth.) And, in this first batch of seventeen plans, seven did just that: Colorado, Connecticut, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Mexico, and Tennessee.

Charter expansion, for example, is a sensible and underused strategy, particularly if states are focused on turning around students’ lives, as well as schools, and more so if charter opportunities are focused in urban areas where success has been best documented. CREDO’s massive 2015 study of urban charter schools, for instance, revealed particularly strong charter performance for “Black, Hispanic, low-income, and special education students in both math and reading.”

Two states, Colorado and New Mexico, specifically list charter expansion as one of their four respective turnaround strategies that local education agencies can use to fix or replace failing schools. Colorado uses the language “conversion to a charter school” and notes that state support is available, and New Mexico calls it a “restart” wherein an LEA decides to “close the school and reopen it under a charter school operator that has been selected through a rigorous state or local authorizer review process.” These are both praiseworthy approaches, but states don’t seem to realize that ESSA allows them to use the Title I set-aside on brand-new charter schools in communities impacted by school failure, not just conversions or restarts.

Then there’s Connecticut. Though it doesn’t expressly mention charter schools, its plan implies that charter expansion and/or conversion is permissible. It states that, if other interventions don’t work, an LEA may, among other things, choose an option in which it “retains authority but enters into a management partnership with an external entity; or...transfers the entire management and oversight of a school to an external entity.”

The second quoted clause from Connecticut’s plan can also be interpreted as suggesting two other innovative strategies that are specifically mentioned in four other state plans: state-turnaround districts, in which control of struggling schools is transferred to the state; and receiverships, where an individual is granted all or most of the powers of a district superintendent and school board. Versions of the former have existed in Louisiana, Tennessee, and Nevada for years, and all three states carried these programs over into their ESSA plans. The potential of such an intervention is evident in studies of Louisiana’s program, which is the oldest of the three, having been around since 2003. A comprehensive 2016 study by The Education Research Alliance for New Orleans, for instance, found strongly positive effects, even while accounting for demographic changes as the city recovered.

As for receiverships, Massachusetts has the most prominent example, in the town of Lawrence, and the state included the intervention in its ESSA plan. Created in 2011, it’s use in Lawrence had, by 2015, “double[d] the number of schools with a median [student growth percentile] above 50 on both ELA and math MCAS…(and) achieved a 14.6 percentage point increase in the 4-year cohort graduation rate (from 52.3 percent in 2011 to 66.9 percent in 2014), and a 4 percentage point decrease in the annual dropout rate (from 8.6 percent to 4.6 percent), after three years of results.”

Finally, “Innovation Zones,” a promising strategy in which local districts keep control of some low-performing schools while giving the schools more resources and increased autonomy, are present in two state plans, Tennessee and Massachusetts. In the former, schools using this model actually outperformed those that were part of the aforementioned state-turnaround district, demonstrating the viability of this approach.

Alas, the other ten states’ school improvement plans comprise language that is, on the whole, vague, empty, and/or unimaginative. These include Arizona, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, and Vermont. Arizona, for example, promises to “conduct an in-depth needs assessment” and “identify possible new bold and innovative interventions and actions,” with no further explanation. Maine’s plan includes “face-to-face school improvement coaching support, increased district support in relation to targeted professional development, and increased financial resources.” And Oregon “will monitor district and school improvement plans and annually adjust levels of supports and interventions based on implementation progress,” as well as “require, at a minimum, annual updates of progress to local school boards and stakeholder groups.”

In sum, seven of the first seventeen state ESSA plans include promising, innovative ways to improve or replace failing schools, but ten of them don’t. If we see a similar pattern with the states that submit plans in September, most of America's failing schools may remain failing for years to come. 

A RAND report last year found that virtually every teacher in America—99 percent of elementary teachers; 96 percent of secondary school—draws upon “materials I developed and/or selected myself” in teaching English language arts. And where are they finding said materials? Mostly Google (94 percent) and Pinterest (87 percent). Thus it is hard to be anything other that cheered by a new RAND report that explores the use of math and ELA materials on EngageNY, “one of the first efforts to create coherent, standards-aligned Open Educational Resource curriculum materials.” Created by New York State, the site features full sets of Common Core-aligned ELA and math curricula for use in K–12 classrooms, all of it available for free.

Looking at usage patterns during the 2014–15 and 2015–16 school years, as well as survey results from the nationally representative American Teacher Panel survey, the authors of this case study want to know who is using EngageNY, which elements are the most popular, how it supports teaching and learning, and what explains the site’s “high uptake.” Unsurprisingly, EngageNY sees heavy use in New York State, however its math and ELA materials were accessed in every state, with particularly high traffic states that have adopted Common Core or similar standards (equally unsurprising). The report reaffirms that math is the breakout hit. “EngageNY mathematics curriculum materials were used at about three times the rate of ELA curriculum materials across the United States,” the authors note. “However, our survey data suggests that ELA teachers may have used EngageNY materials more comprehensively than mathematics teachers.” One significant irritant: the report repeatedly—and mistakenly—refers to Core Knowledge Language Arts, the exceptional early elementary ELA curriculum offered on EngageNY, as the “Common Knowledge Language Arts” program.

The strong uptake of EngageNY is not a simple case of if you build it they will come. School district requirements and recommendations appear to be a prime reason why teachers use it. “Nearly one-half of teachers indicated that their district required use of EngageNY for their ELA and mathematics instruction, and between 80 and 90 percent indicated that their district either required or recommended its use.” Compared with other materials, math teachers were “more likely to indicate that EngageNY provided their students with opportunities to explain and justify their work,” while serving key instructional goals including conceptual understanding, procedural skills, and application to real-life contexts. ELA teachers indicated that EngageNY was more likely to provide students with non-fiction texts of sufficient grade-level complexity, and which use a range of vocabulary and connect literacy instruction to other content than other materials. In short, it beats the heck out of Pinterest.

“Given that state standards and districts appear to be such a large driver of EngageNY, OER providers—and any providers of online instructional materials—should ensure that their materials are clearly aligned with standards and provide explicit evidence in that regard,” the report concludes. Well, sure, but why stop there? The same can and should be said for all curriculum materials that finds its way into American classrooms and in front of children—not just OER, which is a delivery system, nothing more or less. Indeed, while the open nature of EngageNY resources “may encourage their use,” the authors note, “teachers did not cite ‘availability’ more often as an influence for their use of EngageNY compared with other instructional materials.” In other words, the medium is not the message. “Open educational resources (OER) could serve a key role in implementation of state standards by connecting educators with free, standards-aligned online curricula and lesson activities,” the report concludes. OER can also connect educators with free, easily accessible dreck. The key will be a sufficiently sophisticated view of curriculum that valorizes not just “alignment” to standards but quality. That’s not an OER thing, it’s a discernment thing.

SOURCE: By Julia H. Kaufman et al., “Use of Open Educational Resources in an Era of Common Standards: A Case Study on the Use of EngageNY,” RAND Corporation (2017).

As we stress in our recent review of online instructional tools, the adoption of the Common Core State Standards seven years ago led to unprecedented levels of information and resource sharing across states. Technological advancements and a growing movement towards open-source educational resources have further contributed to a huge explosion of choice on the K–12 curricular marketplace. And while choice can be a good thing, many educators remain completely overwhelmed by the vast array of curricular and instructional resources now available.

A new Education Week special report released last month, comprising eight separate articles, aims to help educators “navigate [this] increasingly diverse marketplace of new—and often promising—curricular choices.”

The series kicks off with a helpful overview of several national organizations conducting independent reviews of curricular and instructional materials (such as EdReports, Learning List, and the State Educational Technology Directors Association). It highlights several recent state and district efforts to create curriculum from the ground up, such as Louisiana’s recent partnership with LearnZillion to create a new English Language Arts (ELA) curriculum for the state, and weighs the relative advantages of online versus traditional print resources (such as real-time assessment and student data reporting features).

Additional articles cover: (1) the recent trend towards “open educational resources,” which are “materials for teaching or learning that are either in the public domain or [can] be freely used, changed, or shared with others;” (2) the potential benefits and downsides to online, educational “playlists,” or programs that customize student learning; and (3) tips from educators for vetting online curriculum.

The report concludes by flagging common student data privacy concerns and security “red flags” educators should consider when using online educational apps in classrooms.

As Cory Koedel and Morgan Polikoff conclude in a recent study, “non-trivial gains in student achievement are attainable simply by choosing more effective curriculum materials.” While somewhat random in nature, EdWeek’s collection of articles nonetheless provides educators with helpful information and issues to mull over as they navigate an ever-increasing curriculum market.

SOURCE: “Special Report: Navigating New Curriculum Choices,” Education Week (March 2017).

1. The state board of education voted 16-3 yesterday to ask the General Assembly to legislate a “one-year-only bailout” which would allow this year’s juniors (the putative graduating Class of 2018) other ways to earn their high school diploma besides the new test-based requirements which are scheduled to go into effect for that aforementioned class. In the end, a majority of the board accepted the so-called “graduation crisis” premise and supported less rigorous alternatives. One of the few voices arguing publicly against such weak-sauce alternatives was our own Chad Aldis. His testimony features in all of the following stories. Kudos to public media’s Andy Chow for his almost-poetic retelling of events, complete with a reference to the Broadway musical Hamilton. (Statehouse News Bureau, via IdeaStream public media, 4/11/17) Sadly, no student will be required to show knowledge about Hamilton the musical or Hamilton the man if the new requirement of 93% attendance is the basis of their diploma. The Dispatch version makes sure to quote Chad as saying 1994 was the last time Ohio diplomas had no link to an objective proficiency measure. We liked Jim Carrey films a lot in 1994 too; 3 of them in the top-15 grossers that year. Just sayin’. (Columbus Dispatch, 4/11/17) The DDN took a second to note that Fordham sponsors charter schools before including a bit of Chad’s testimony before appearing to agree with local legislator Peggy Lehner, who’s pretty OK with all this. Nope. I don’t know why either. (Dayton Daily News, 4/11/17) Gongwer was thorough in noting the back and forth on the issue among board members. Lehner took an interesting line with board members, saying that they would have more input into the change if it were done now rather than if they voted to wait. Wonder what that meant? (Gongwer Ohio, 4/11/17) Interestingly, the AP seemed fairly skeptical of this whole endeavor, taking pains to quote board member Kara Morgan who wondered whether the “one-year-only” business might not be a bit of a Trojan Horse. (AP, Via Blade, 4/11/17) The PD seems to think the fact that an attempt to include the Class of 2019 in the moratorium was voted down yesterday mitigates that fear of a permanently-lowered bar. They also take pains to note that some even lamer diploma criteria (participation in sports and student clubs) were rejected in crafting the “bailout” plan, but since those recommended include the aforementioned less-than-perfect attendance (which in Ohio is mandatory, you know) and a 2.5 GPA, this is really just splitting hairs. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 4/11/17) Given that last bit, it’s might seem a little surprising that an op-ed arguing against the lowering of the graduation bar – written by our own Chad Aldis and Aaron Churchill – saw the light of day in the PD. But it did. This morning. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 4/12/17)
    
2. A “competing” op-ed in support of the lowered graduation bar for the Class of 2018 was published in the PD back in January and linked to Chad and Aaron’s piece (which, again, was published this morning). It was written by a teacher from Elyria City Schools. And that fellow should know, because Elyria is already an “exceptional” school system, according the supe’s state of the district report earlier this week. In fact, supe says it’s got just a point or two to go before he can report that it is an “excellent” school system. What does he use as criteria for this determination? Sports, extracurriculars, and some swanky new school buildings on the horizon – complete with “fidget chairs” for kids. Oh, and the fact that kids and families have almost stopped fleeing the district. (Northern Ohio Morning Journal, 4/11/17) Wonder why the committee looking to rescue the Class of 2018 from the “graduation crisis” didn’t think to include time in fidget chairs as a possible pathway to a diploma? Sloppy.
    
3. In related news, a Columbus-based group that includes Fordham board member Steve Dackin reported this week some progress in increasing the number of people in central Ohio with some education or training beyond high school. Good work folks; sorry to see that there’s a giant roadblock to your work coming down the pike. (Columbus Dispatch, 4/12/17)
    
4. Also at the state board of ed meeting yesterday, members voted in favor of a resolution to support Ohio Teacher Evaluation System changes developed by the Educator Standards Board. (Gongwer Ohio, 4/11/17) The Dayton Daily News was interested in this topic too. Like the graduation standards changes, the next move will be in the General Assembly. Maybe that will happen via the state budget; maybe it will happen via a standalone bill later in the year. Either way, smells like sausage to me. (Dayton Daily News, 4/11/17)
    
5. Back in the real world, the Akron school board voted this week to approve a “college and career academy master plan”. It is “a blueprint for implementing high school academies that will help ready students for entry into the workforce, the military or college upon graduation” which will affect the structure of all high schools in the district. (Akron Beacon Journal, 4/11/17) At the other end of the school age range, it was announced that the LeBron James Foundation will be helping to fund a new school in the district starting next year. It will be called “I PROMISE”, based on the afterschool program of that name already operating in the district, and will start with third and fourth graders (selected by lottery) with other grades to be added in future years. More details remain to be worked out but everyone seems very excited about this. I, for some reason, thought of Ben Stiller when reading this. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 4/11/17)
    
6. Stepping way out of the real world, a special meeting of the Youngstown school board was held on Monday to discuss and vote on structural changes that it was hoped would shorten the length of regular meetings. This special meeting lasted three hours. (Youngstown Vindicator, 4/10/17) At the regular meeting on Tuesday, the board followed those newly-approved rules – mostly – and got out in less than two. Substance was lacking, but the length of the meeting had nothing to do with it. (Youngstown Vindicator, 4/12/17)
    
7. Finally, we have a national piece touting a largely harmonious and productive partnership between charter schools and the local school district in Cleveland. Well, if Eric Gordon says it’s happening, it must be happening. (The 74 Million blog, 4/10/17) 

University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax has a provocative lead essay in the latest issue of National Affairs that warrants thoughtful attention by all concerned with boosting the educational opportunities of poor and minority youngsters. (Isn’t that just about everyone in education these days?)

She compares and contrasts the “no excuses” model of charter schools with sundry “diversity” initiatives—mainly socio-economic mixing à la Rick Kahlenberg—and finds the former possibly more effective and definitely more politically viable. “Educational efficacy,” she writes, “is not the only consideration in deciding which of these strategies should be favored and how much society should invest in each. In assessing the feasibility of these models, pragmatic and political considerations loom large.”

Professor Wax doesn’t overstate the results of no-excuses charters, candidly acknowledging the lack of long term data on such key measures as college completions. She also shares the surprising (at least to me) factoid that few graduates of Eva Moskowitz’s acclaimed no-excuses charter middle schools have gained admission to New York City’s selective-admission high schools. (None in 2014 or 2015, just six last year.) She admits that it’s hard to “scale” the no-excuses model, largely due to the paucity of capable, committed staff—and she recognizes the teacher burnout problem. On balance, however, she tends toward the view that no-excuses schools will turn out to have stronger impact on kids’ life prospects than efforts at forced diversity via economic integration.

Turning to that type of educational intervention, she states bluntly that its political and logistical impediments are even greater than those facing no-excuses charters—and suggests that those impediments exceed the likely benefit to children.

“The income-integration model,” she writes, “has significant practical shortcomings, the most important of which is demography… The obstacles to shifting students out of low-income schools to more middle-class settings are formidable.” She adds that in many urban settings there aren’t enough middle class children to go around, and that “even in the locations where income mixing is most feasible, integration can prove unstable.” Worse, she finds no persuasive evidence that going to school with poor kids does no behavioral or academic harm to middle class kids. As for the benefit that disadvantaged students draw from such mixing, Wax observes the “frog pond effect” whereby poor youngsters placed in more affluent institutions tend to lose out in the competition for grades and social standing, resulting in lesser self-confidence and emotional well-being.

Probably the most thought-provoking portion of Professor Wax’s essay is her discussion of how both models—no-excuses and income mixing—“assume that, to succeed in school and in life, poor children need to be taught bourgeois, middle-class values—and socialized away from their culture of birth.”

This is, of course, a “highly controversial and unpopular stance, especially on the left,” and it’s one that supporters of income mixing are generally able to mask from view, “couching these predicates in euphemism and indirection. But once income mixing actually occurs, the cold realities of race and class disparities cannot long be suppressed.” Ultimately, Wax says, “proponents of income integration must deal with the cognitive dissonance created by the model’s foundational premise, which is that disadvantaged students’ habits and attitudes are deficient and will be improved by immersion in a superior environment, [versus] discomfort with the idea of class-based cultural differences.”

Proponents of the no-excuses model, by contrast, don’t have to deal with cognitive dissonance, as they’re transparent with the assumption that their students need to embrace a new set of values, norms, and aspirations. Which doesn’t necessarily make their task any easier, for they must grapple openly with those—both on the progressive left and in minority communities—who are openly hostile to cultural judgmentalism and imperialism.

It’s probably just as well that Wax isn’t (to my knowledge) planning to speak at Middlebury anytime soon, for she also bravely tackles the question of school discipline. There, she concludes—as do I—that policy-driven efforts to suppress forceful discipline by teachers and principals result in more disruptive youngsters remaining in more disrupted classrooms where they distract, upset, and diminish the effectiveness of teachers, interfere with classmates’ learning, and drive more families with well-behaved children to flee to whatever better options they can afford. This inevitably shrinks the number of middle-class students who remain to “integrate” with disadvantaged pupils.

On balance, Wax concludes,

The enormous social-engineering effort required to achieved income integration and the turmoil and tension that it often generates argue against a large-scale push to manipulate public-school demography… The no-excuses alternative, in contrast, is better equipped to negotiate the tensions between uplift models and progressive commitments, and to deal with the persistence of race and class differences. Such schools educate mainly low-income students, which renders socioeconomic disparities less salient… Because students and teachers need not constantly confront inequalities that are the product of large social forces, the embrace of active acculturation can proceed without apology to beneficiaries or benefactors.

Do please read the Wax essay and ponder. Having done so, I think she’s right.

NOTE: The state board of education today debated the recent report of a graduation requirements workgroup. Among those providing testimony on the state’s high school graduation requirements was Chad L. Aldis, Vice President for Ohio Policy and Advocacy here at Fordham. The following are his written remarks.

Thank you, President Elshoff, Governor Hollister, and State Board members, for the opportunity to provide public comment today.

In December, I testified before this body and urged caution and thoughtfulness when dealing with the challenge posed by the new higher standards required to earn a high school diploma. Since then, a committee appointed by Superintendent DeMaria has delved into the issue and offered its recommendations. They’ve recommended that students in the class of 2018 complete 2 of 6 additional requirements,[1] and functionally, that any required measure of academic preparedness for the class of 2018 be eliminated.

If you endorse the committee’s work and recommend the legislature do the same, there will undoubtedly be educators and students around the state breathing a sigh of relief. On its face, it sounds like a win/win.

It won’t be; moreover, the consequences will be far reaching.

Ohio’s graduation rate will climb precipitously. It’ll likely jump from the low 80s to over 90 percent. Yet it will signify nothing. It will be a paper victory. Our students won’t be able to read better, they won’t have better math skills, and they won’t be better prepared to be citizens.

Last week in his State of the State, Governor Kasich talked about the jobs of the future. He talked about the level of preparation needed for those exciting new jobs. Don’t forget about the high-skill jobs currently available. We’ve all heard repeatedly that good jobs in Ohio remain unfilled as there aren’t enough qualified applicants. Rather than embracing the challenge ahead or taking advantage of current opportunities, this change would be a step backward.

The graduation requirements committee talked about the importance of 21^st-century skills that could go beyond test scores. I certainly wouldn’t disagree on their importance. Those 21^st-century skills that businesses are clamoring for should be a supplement to and not a replacement for basic academic skills. After all, there’s little demand in the workforce for people who think creatively, work well with others, and are functionally illiterate.

To this point, I’ve mostly talked about the macro impact of the proposed change, but the impact at the student and school level would potentially be even more harmful.

There are juniors right now on track for 14, 15, 16 points on their end-of-course exams. The current system is pushing them to improve their scores to hit the 18 point benchmark that this body established.

What does that really mean? They are working hard to read better, compute better, and develop a better understanding of United States history. That is, after all, what we want.

These students aren’t alone though. Their schools are likely helping them try to reach that bar with additional classes, focused efforts to improve skills, and tutoring.

If the EOC requirement goes away, the student incentive to hit a higher bar disappears and so do the academic supports.

The impact will be greatest on the very low-income students, whom this change has been publicly purported to help. They’ll get their high school diploma, but they won’t be better prepared for life after high school. Many will struggle to get accepted into post-secondary programs. Many of those who are accepted will require costly remedial education. Those entering the workforce directly may very well be required to prove their skills once there since employers will no longer be assured that diploma recipients have even a base level of academic preparation, and those wishing to serve their country in the military may struggle with the entrance examination.

The recommended change, while well-intentioned and endeavoring to resolve a challenging situation, would return to a policy that President Bush famously referred to as the soft bigotry of low expectations. It would take Ohio back almost twenty-five years to 1994, the last time a student could get an Ohio high school diploma without demonstrating a certain level of high school proficiency.

If we believe that every student can learn, our duty is to do everything we can do to help each student reach his or her potential. This change falls woefully short and should be rejected.

Editor’s note: This is the first article in a series that will outline some foundational principles for successful adoption of innovative education reforms. The next post will explain the role of patience in effective innovation.

When was the last time you heard a corporation, university, government agency, or school champion the idea that innovation is overrated? I’m guessing that you might have an easier time trying to locate the Loch Ness monster. Even if you could find some company or school that actually believed innovation was overrated, odds are they’d never openly admit it.

In today’s world, being innovative is equated with success and progress. As a result, everyone wants to be innovative. But what does that really mean? I’m reminded of the classic scene from The Princess Bride where Inigo Montoya turns to his boss, Vizzini, who has just used the word “inconceivable” for the umpteenth time and says, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

The purpose of this series of blog posts is to make the case that creating great policy ideas, even identifying disruptive education innovations, is not enough if we really want to bring about real reform in the education space. In fact, coming up with innovative ideas to reshape education is the easy part. Getting those ideas adopted; that’s where the real work begins.

Fortunately, there is a set of basic principles that, if we recognize and apply, will help to more effectively drive change and adopt the ideas and innovations we believe can help change America’s education future. We ignore these principles at our own peril.

The most basic innovation principle is that no two innovations are alike.

This may seem like a no-brainer, and the idea is not new, but my research and consulting experience tells me that we far too often treat all innovation the same. So when we talk about education reform and the need for innovation, the first step is to understand what we really mean when we use the word “innovation.”

Rebecca Henderson and Kim Clark have done much to identify the full nature and breadth of innovations, observing that there are four general types:

1. Incremental innovation: Work that builds upon and reinforces a previous product or service in small ways. It can also be thought of as “feature innovation.” Examples include an updated version of a book or curriculum that offers better usability for the student.
2. Modular innovation: A change to a key component of a product or service that doesn’t alter the overall product or service delivery. An example is an iPad that allows students, who otherwise remain in a standard classroom with a teacher, to take notes, look up information quickly, and engage in some self-directed learning.
3. Architectural innovation: Changes to the nature and relationship between several parts of a product or service delivery, such as education funding reforms—vouchers, tax credits, etc.
4. Radical innovation: Also known as “disruptive innovation,” it introduces a totally new paradigm and has the potential to make a current product or way of doing things irrelevant. An example of this is the student-centric model of education outlined by Christensen in his book, Disrupting Class.

The second step is to understand each innovation type brings with it its own set of adoption requirements. To make a dating/relationship comparison, it’s a bit like compatibility profiles from one of those online dating sites. The closer the match between two individuals the higher the chance is for relationship success. By the same token, the better we understand the nature of a given education innovation, the better we can “match” the innovation with any number of innovation adoption factors.

For example, the successful adoption of a radical innovation requires a high level of autonomy. Radical innovation is also best fostered in situations where resources are scarce. For Christensen’s student-centric education model, the best place to look for a match for his innovation would be under performing and under resourced schools where the administrators have a high risk tolerance and maximum autonomy to implement.

Another example of matching would be the assessment reforms highlighted by David Griffith in his recent post on this blog. Assessment innovations would be considered modular. Modular innovations tend to do better where the system or service is better defined but where a high degree of flexibility to experiment is allowed and even encouraged. As Griffith noted, ESSA gets assessment innovation right by the providing flexibility for states to experiment. It doesn’t guarantee that the states will be equally innovative, but the act opens the door for states to act as laboratories in ways that the federal government cannot because there just isn’t the same level of flexibility.

Every parent quickly learns that no two children are alike and that what works and motivates one child often is totally lost on the other. If we don’t adjust, we have one happy and successful child and another who can’t stand our guts and ends up as a guest on Dr. Phil. Likewise, from vouchers to blended learning to assessment strategies, we need to treat each innovation differently. Matching innovations with the right environments, resources, leadership, etc., gives those innovations the best chance at sticking and facilitating the desired outcomes.

Dr. Lyall J. Swim is the managing partner at Junto Strategy.

The views expressed herein represent the opinions of the author and not necessarily the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Ohio faces a significant budget crunch. This is forcing state lawmakers to scrutinize expenditures—even more closely than usual—to create a balanced budget by the end of June. A good place to start would be examining the projected $378 million in “guarantee funding” over the next biennium (fiscal years 2018 and 19). Guarantees award some districts with millions more than they would otherwise receive under the state’s own funding formula. Guarantees are a poor use of limited resources and undermine the formula. Here’s why.

Funding guarantees aren’t a trivial expense

Under the Administration’s budget proposal, the state would spend $181 million on the guarantee in FY 18 and $197 million in FY 19. This represents about 2.1 percent of overall state spending on K-12 education over the biennium. While that may not sound like a large slice of the funding pie, it is roughly equivalent to the state funding specifically allocated to gifted, career and technical education, and English language learning combined.

For non-budget-obsessed readers, let us recall what the guarantee is. Guarantee funds are allocated to districts that are either losing students or experiencing gains in local wealth relative to the rest of the state (sometimes both). The idea is that districts need budgetary stability and should be shielded from funding reductions under the state formula.

In the former case, the state funds districts for “phantom students,” or kids who aren’t even being educated by the district. Economists Jon Fullerton and Marguerite Roza have argued that propping up declining districts through a guarantee could actually be counterproductive: “Funding phantom students delivers the message that school districts should continue delivering education the way they have for the last century.” They explain that guarantees allow districts to avoid making decisions that could improve the performance of their schools, such as re-prioritizing educational programs, seeking ways to innovate or form partnerships, or shifting to more flexible cost structures.

In other cases, the state provides additional dollars to districts with improving economic conditions. Several districts are projected to be on the guarantee in FY 18-19 due in part to reductions in their state share index (SSI). A lower SSI means that as local wealth increases, the state picks up less of the funding tab all else equal. For example, among the districts on the guarantee, the largest negative change in SSI is Noble Local (-28 percent). A closer look at its recent financial statements indicates that the district is generating more property tax revenue due to oil and gas development. A similar phenomenon is likely happening in other districts that are also reaping the benefits of the fracking boom. Lawmakers should ask themselves whether it’s an efficient use of limited state education dollars to drive additional aid to districts that have more local wealth they can (literally) tap into.

The guarantee is becoming a permanent fixture for many districts

One common argument for the guarantee—also known as “temporary transitional aid”—is that districts need time to adjust to changing circumstances. Yet guarantee funding is sometimes anything but temporary. The table shows the breakdown of districts expected to be on the guarantee in FY 18-19 and whether they’ve been on the guarantee in prior years. Interestingly, eighty-five districts out of 328 districts projected to be on the guarantee have been on it for each of the four prior years. Together, the districts are slated to receive more than $218 million or almost 58 percent of the guarantee funding over the next two years. In per-pupil terms, they also receive more than the other “guarantee” districts: on average almost $1,500 per-pupil in guarantee funding. Though some districts are “new” to the guarantee, the bulk of the guarantee aid would be directed to districts that have drawn the extra funding for year after year.

Ohio districts by the number of years on the guarantee (FY 2014-17)

[[{"fid":"118422","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"default"},"type":"media","link_text":null,"attributes":{"height":"338","width":"1254","style":"width: 600px; height: 162px;","class":"media-element file-default"}}]]

* Includes districts projected to be on the guarantee in either FY 18 or 19 (almost all are on the guarantee both years). Source: Author’s calculations based on OBM, School Foundation Funding Estimates and ODE, District Payment Reports (for FY 14-17 guarantee amounts).

The guarantee pulls money away from other uses

Rather than providing $378 million to help fund phantom students or districts with diminishing need, lawmakers should consider whether there are better uses for those dollars. One option might be to help reduce the impact of Ohio’s school funding cap, which under the Administration’s proposal would deny $825.5 million in funding to hundreds of districts in FY 18-19. Such districts have increasing enrollments and/or weakening tax bases, leading to the growth in state funding (which is then limited by the cap). Some districts on the cap serve significant numbers of low-income children—like Canton, Columbus, and Dayton—and the repurposed funds could be used to ensure that they receive the full formula amounts rather than shortchanging their already-needy pupils.

The guarantee doesn’t effectively create financial certainty for districts

One idea behind the guarantee is that districts require stability and certainty as they create their budgets. But the biennial debates around the guarantee and its lack of fairness likely make it less than a “certainty” for districts. Plus, there are better ways to manage fluctuations than the guarantee.

First, as suggested in A Formula That Works, the state could base its funding formula on prior year enrollments instead of current year. In essence, this would allow districts to better predict their state funding for budgetary purposes, as they would know in advance how many kids they would be funded for. This would work almost like a guarantee, but it would apply to all districts and not just select ones. It would indeed “hold harmless” districts that lose students from one year to the next, though it would underfund districts with enrollment gains.

Second, in extraordinary situations, the state could step in to provide temporary support. For example, state lawmakers are considering emergency relief for Adams County districts where property taxes are set to plunge due to two power plant closures. The state already has a solvency assistance fund and policymakers could ensure that enough rainy-day dollars are available for rare cases in which districts truly need temporary emergency aid.

* * *

Perhaps one way of thinking about the guarantee is like unemployment compensation. It’s a reasonable public expenditure to help individuals who need temporary assistance, but few would argue it should be indefinite. Likewise, the state should provide some extra help to districts in emergency situations not of their own making. Yet it need not offer open-ended access to hundreds of millions of dollars in additional funding—all outside of the formula—through the guarantee. Ohio lawmakers face tough budget decisions in the coming months and they should consider unwinding the guarantee. Dollars spent on children not actually being educated by a district is not money well spent.

A new meta-analysis of studies examining the relationship between homework and student achievement looks at 30 years of data involving over 312,000 students worldwide. It was published in the journal Educational Research Review in March.

The researchers noted a split in the findings of the studies reviewed: about as many studies found a positive relationship between homework and student achievement as found a negative relationship. But the researchers wondered if there were confounding factors among the various studies that might explain the disparate results. To look into this hypothesis, they narrowed the more than 8,000 studies under review down to twenty-eight that contained sufficient data to compare along eight variables identified as having the potential to lead to the inconsistent results.

These eight are interesting and worth noting: grade level (could the findings be more consistent in high school vs. elementary school?), subject matter (science vs. math?), homework indicators (homework measured by time on task vs. effort or grade received), publication type (perhaps the bar for publication in a peer-reviewed journal vs. a dissertation lead to inconsistent reporting of findings?), publication year (might the see-sawing reputation of homework as help or hindrance over time lead to inconsistent reporting of findings?), sampling method (random assignment studies vs. others?), geographical region (does regional or national differences in approach to homework explain the inconsistent findings?), and measure of achievement (could the findings be more consistent when achievement is measured by standardized vs. non-standardized assessments?). Whew!

After considering the eight variables, analysts concluded that a small and positive relationship between homework and academic achievement in math and science exists. That relationship is stronger in elementary and high school over middle school (bucking a finding noted in previous meta-analyses) and is stronger for U.S. students than for their Asian counterparts, which the largely China-based researchers attribute to the rise of private tutoring in a number of Asian countries.

With each report of schools and parents opting out of homework so as not to stress out their kids, the arguments begin anew: What is the purpose of homework, how much should be given, what form should it take, how do we know it’s valuable? This research creates some coherence between fragmented findings that could be useful in answering these questions. For now, the age-old notion that homework can help continues to ring true.

SOURCE: Huiyong Fan, Jianzhong Xu, Zhihui Cai, Jinbo He, and Xitao Fan “Homework and students' achievement in math and science: A 30-year meta-analysis, 1986-2015,” Educational Research Review (March 2017).

When (and how) should gifted education teachers apply general teaching principles vs. specialized instruction in their gifted education classrooms? In what circumstances are gifted learners like all others in classrooms around the world and when are they uniquely different? These questions plague the field with many implications regarding access, equity, and educational values. A new publication, Top twenty principles from psychology for pre-K–12 creative, talented, and gifted Students’ teaching and learning, published by the Center for Psychology in Schools and Education at the American Psychological Association in collaboration with scholars in our field, aims to help educators answer these questions.

Organized around a set of twenty research-based principles of learning, the synthesis introduces readers to each principle, how it is relevant to teachers, and provides a list of actions that teachers can take to incorporate these principles into their gifted education classroom to promote learning and development.

This document expands on a version that was originally developed for the broader education community by specifically targeting the K–12 education experiences of gifted and talented students. Research syntheses such as this one help practitioners make sure that they are applying effective practices in their classrooms.

Organized around five themes, the twenty principles are listed here:

How do students think and learn?

1. Students’ beliefs or perceptions about intelligence and ability affect their cognitive functioning and learning.

2. What students already know affects their learning.

3. Students’ cognitive development and learning are not limited by general stages of development.

4. Learning is based on context, so generalizing learning to new contexts is not spontaneous but instead needs to be facilitated.

5. Acquiring long-term knowledge and skill is largely dependent on practice.

6. Clear, explanatory, and timely feedback to students is important for learning.

7. Students’ self-regulation assists learning, and self-regulatory skills can be taught.

8. Student creativity can be fostered.

What motivates students?

9. Students tend to enjoy learning and perform better when they are more intrinsically than extrinsically motivated to achieve.

10. Students persist in the face of challenging tasks and process information more deeply when they adopt mastery goals rather than performance goals.

11. Teachers’ expectations about their students affect students’ opportunities to learn, their motivation, and their learning outcomes.

12. Setting goals that are short term (proximal), specific, and moderately challenging, enhances motivation more than establishing goals that are long term (distal), general, and overly challenging.

Why are social context, interpersonal relationships, and emotional well-being important to student learning?

13. Learning is situated within multiple social contexts.

14. Interpersonal relationships and communication are critical to both the teaching—learning process and the social-emotional development of students.

15. Emotional well-being influences educational performance, learning, and development.

How can the classroom best be managed?

16. Expectations for classroom conduct and social interaction are learned and can be taught using proven principles of behavior and effective classroom instruction.

17. Effective classroom management is based on (a) setting and communicating high expectations, (b) consistently nurturing positive relationships, and (c) providing a high level of student support.

How to assess student progress?

18. Formative and summative assessments are both important and useful but require different approaches and interpretations.

19. Students’ skills, knowledge, and abilities, are best measured with assessment processes grounded in psychological science with well-defined standards for quality and fairness.

20. Making sense of assessment data depends on clear, appropriate, and fair interpretation.

Each principle is described based on evidence from research with gifted populations. The brief description is followed by practical suggestions for the classroom and references from both the regular and gifted education literature.

Matthew C. Makel, Duke University Talent Identification Program; Rena Subotnik, American Psychological Association; Paula Olszewski-Kubilius, Northwestern University Center for Talent Development; Jonathan Plucker, Johns Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth and School of Education.

The views expressed herein represent the opinions of the author and not necessarily the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.