The Education Gadfly Weekly

SAGE Publishing’s recently released reference set Debating Issues in American Education is a 10-volume deep dive into many of the most salient issues regarding the state of PreK-12 education in the United States today. A stellar roster of contributors appears in each issue, recruited by the editors for their knowledge and insight into the topics at hand.

The ten volumes are:

• Alternative Schooling & School Choice
• Curriculum & Instruction
• Diversity in Schools
• Religion in Schools
• School Discipline & Safety
• School Finance
• School Governance
• School Law
• Standards & Accountability in Schools
• Technology in Schools

Within each volume, a dozen or more specific questions are put forward and argued in point/counterpoint essays by contributing authors. The variety of approaches and areas of focus brought to the series by the wide array of authors is a particular strength of the set. I found myself wondering before I sat down to review a volume if interest could be sustained in the topic overall when there were literally hundreds of pages spent on what seems from the outside to be subtle variations in the questions being debated. I found on more than one occasion that what had been meant to be a review of the essays ended up being an in-depth reading of more than half the volume. It is also rewarding when discussion of one particularly important study or Supreme Court Case is echoed or reinforced in another essay by another contributor. There is a real sense that the volumes are geared to build knowledge over a full reading of their essays. Some topics are broader than others and even eighteen essays are perhaps not enough to fully cover every nuance, but there is never a sense that any topic is being short changed.

The editors of the individual volumes also are diligent in making sure that the various themes and insights are part of a unified whole. Editors provide an introduction to the broad topic for that volume that often explains how individual questions were chosen for each topic as well as using history and context to build a throughline for the variety of essays covering those questions. Each question’s point/counterpoint essays also feature a detailed headnote by the volume editor that takes the same tack with the specific question, providing context for the essays to follow.

Contributing authors come from academia, think tanks, government, schools, and the law. They are all well-versed in their topic areas and seem well-chosen from a point/counterpoint perspective. It is clear that each author has had opportunities to review the other’s essay prior to publication and it is often interesting to see how a supporter of an issue addresses (or chooses not to address) the other’s contentions in his or her own essay. Subtlety often pays off more than direct contention.

And that I think is the main benefit of this, frankly, amazing collection of thought and discourse. Even if the topics are not relevant to you directly, the ways in which these issues are discussed and debated – including historical context and interpretation of studies and court decisions – are interesting in themselves.

We at the Fordham Institute are proud to have three contributors to the volume on Standards & Accountability in Schools, but for this reviewer personally it is the breadth of topics, the depth of knowledge, and the care in presentation of the material that really makes this reference set stand out. These are the topics that are uppermost in the minds of education stakeholders across the spectrum today, which require the deep knowledge and historical context in order to be properly addressed going forward.

What can Ohio schools learn from South Korean businesses? In a study published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior, Kiwook Kwon and Deborah E. Rupp examine the impact on firms when their high-performing employees leave their jobs.  Specifically, Kwon and Rupp analyze employee and performance data for 155 Korean firms, finding that organizations that invest in extensive selection practices, provide intensive training and development, and implement incentive-based pay suffer less when they lose high-performing employees. The researchers explain that firms focusing on human resources initiatives have staff that is more capable of filling the void left behind when a high-performing employee leaves their organization.

School can potentially learn from the experiences of these firms. Losing a high-performing teacher is difficult for any school. To mitigate the cost of losing a great teacher or administrator, school leaders must think about how to effectively implement human resources initiatives with their staff. As Governor Kasich has proposed a $300 million Straight-A-Fund to incentivize innovation, school leaders should consider applying for grants to develop better processes for hiring new teachers, effectively delivering in-service training, and implementing innovative human resources initiatives. While it will not have the wow factor of a new school building or high-tech equipment, developing a strong workforce can go a long way toward improving a school’s—and its students—chances for success.

SOURCE: Kwon, Kiwook, Deborah E. Rupp. “High-performer turnover and firm performance: The moderating role of human capital investment and firm reputation.”  Journal of Organizational Behavior 34, no. 1 (2013): 129-150.

Educators and community leaders from northeastern Ohio gathered this morning to discuss the impact of student mobility on schools, families, and the community. Roberta Garber, former executive director of Community Research Partners (CRP) presented findings from CRP and Fordham's statewide study of student mobility. Responding to the research were panel members Eric Gordon, CEO of Cleveland Metropolitan Schools; Alan Rosskamm, CEO of Breakthrough Schools; Bob Mengerink, Superintendent of the Cuyahoga County ESC; and John Begala, Executive Director of Center for Community Solutions. The local panel added a human dimension to the study's data and discussed the many ways schools, social services, and other agencies are working in partnership to better serve mobile families and students.

A video of the event, held at the Ideacenter's Westfield Insurance Studio Theater and sponsored by the Nord Family Foundation, will be available on our website soon. To read the study, Student Nomads: Mobility in Ohio's Schools, go here. 

Growing quality charter schools requires strong charter school authorizers. That’s a key takeaway from Stanford University’s CREDO study, Charter School Growth and Replication, released last week. To assess charter school quality in 23 states (including Ohio) and the District of Columbia, CREDO examined over 2 million charter student records from 2005-06 to 2009-10.

A charter school authorizer, of which Fordham is one, has four primary responsibilities: (1) review charter applications, (2) contract with the charter school, (3) ensure compliance, and (4) renew or not renew the charter school’s contract based on school performance, especially academic performance. In each area of responsibility, except compliance, CREDO’s findings suggest that charter school authorizers must strengthen its practices to ensure a growing supply of high-quality charters. Three of CREDO’s findings, in particular, have relevance to charter authorizer practices.

First, CREDO found significant variation in the quality of charter school management networks, or CMOs (e.g., KIPP). Authorizers must be persnickety in the educational organizations with whom they contract—there are sour lemons as well as delicious apples in the CMO barrel. CREDO’s analysis discovered that the finest CMO networks (e.g. KIPP and Uncommon Schools) have large positive effects on students’ learning growth, while the lowest performing networks (e.g. White Hat and Responsive Education Solutions) have far less favorable effects on student learning.[1] They also noted that charters that were supported by the Charter School Growth Fund “had significantly higher learning gains than other CMOs or independent charters.”

Second, CREDO found that a fast start is critical for charter schools. If a charter performs well from the start, it’ll likely continue to perform well five years later. Conversely, if a charter performs poorly from the start, it will likely struggle to turn around its performance. In other words, charters typically don’t get better with age, though, CREDO makes a few caveats on this point.[2] Authorizers, then, must insist on high (though reasonable) academic performance from the get-go, while carefully monitoring performance during a charter’s first few years. As CREDO writes: “In all cases, we argue without exception that poor first year performance simply cannot be overlooked or excused.”

Third, CREDO found that quality begets quality (and vice-versa). When CREDO examined charter replications, the quality of the replicated school was typically the same quality as the flagship school. In addition, CREDO found that, when a charter replicates, the flagship school’s quality doesn’t suffer. Charter school authorizers, then, must encourage, support, and approve the replication efforts of high-quality charter schools and networks of charters. 

CREDO’s findings add to the evidence that strong authorizers can and must lead the charge toward quality. Authorizers can do this by rejecting applications from poor-performing charter management organizations, insisting on academic excellence from the start, and encouraging the replication of high-performing charters. These bold and strong steps on the part of authorizers will create more and better charter schools, in Ohio and across the nation.

[1] CREDO ranked over 100 CMOs, of varying size, by the impact they’ve had on students’ academic performance, and examined in depth four “super-networks” of charter schools (KIPP, Responsive Ed, Uncommon, and White Hat).

[2] We’ve seen exceptions in practice too. For example, Citizens Academy, the top-performing charter in Ohio, was rated “Academic Emergency” (F) in 2003, but in 2012 was rated “Excellent with Distinction” (A+).

Ohio’s charter law remains mediocre despite numerous reform efforts over the last decade. According to the latest “Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of the State Charter School Laws” produced by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS) the Buckeye State’s charter school law ranks 27 out of 43 states and the District of Columbia.

NAPCS ranks state laws based on two primary factors: 1) the freedoms and flexibilities state laws provide charter operators; and 2) the quality of accountability provisions for both charter school operators and authorizers. There are 20 Essential Components of the NAPCS rankings and these range from freedoms such as “No Caps on Charters,” “Automatic Collective Bargaining Exemptions,” and “Equitable Operational Funding” to accountability measures such as “Authorizer and Overall Program Accountability” and “Clear Processes for Renewal, Nonrenewal and Revocation Decisions.”

Ohio has made some progress – and this is reflected in the NAPCS state rating of Ohio inching up from #28 last year to #27 this year. But, other states are making progress faster. Big charter states, those that have at least 4.5 percent of their students enrolled in public charter schools, that have made steady progress and improvements to their laws in recent years include number one ranked Minnesota (with 4.7 percent of students in charters), number four Colorado (with 9.8 percent of students in charters), number five Florida (with 6.8 percent of students in charters), number six Louisiana (with 6.4 percent of students in charters) and number seven California (with 6.7 percent of students in charters).

These states are serving hundreds of thousands of students under state laws that are superior to Ohio’s in both allowing charter freedoms and ensuring charter performance. Louisiana, for example, jumped from #13 to #6 due to significant enhancements in its laws, such as strengthening the authorizing environment and increasing charter school autonomy. While South Carolina leapt from #25 to #12 because of improved laws related to better authorizing.

The NAPCS rankings make clear that Ohio’s lawmakers can do better by its 116,000 charter school students, while setting the conditions for better charter schools and opportunities for more kids in need of better schools in the future. Specifically, legislative leaders in Ohio can help promote charter school quality by crafting policies that ensure would-be school operators are carefully vetted in advance of opening; that all schools are thoroughly monitored by responsible authorities for their academic performance; and that poor performers exit the market in a timely fashion.

Failed schools should not be able to skirt academic accountability; whether they are traditional district schools, virtual charter schools or charter schools operated either by for-profit management companies or nonprofit ones. But, in return for performance, successful charters should receive equitable funding. Charters in Ohio, on average, receive about $2,200 less funding per pupil than traditional district schools. This disparity is due in large part to charter schools’ lack of access to local revenues and facilities funding (Governor Kasich’s budget proposal would help to address some of these inequities). Successful charters should also be able to replicate their successes through innovations like multi-school charter contracts and multi-charter contract boards. If, for example, a high quality charter school board can successfully oversee ten or even 15 great charters in a city there should be no laws preventing this from happening, but there currently is in the Buckeye State.

The states with the best charter schools also have the strongest charter school laws. According to Nina Rees, President and CEO of NAPCS, the national charter school association release their annual rankings so they “can be used by charter school supporters to help them push for laws that support the creation of high-quality public charter schools, particularly those students most in need of a better school option.” Ohio can and should learn from other states when it comes to improving charter school policies and NAPCS makes this easy to do with their rankings and model law. It is smart policy to build on the lessons of higher-performing charter states.

SAGE Publishing’s recently released reference set Debating Issues in American Education is a 10-volume deep dive into many of the most salient issues regarding the state of PreK-12 education in the United States today. A stellar roster of contributors appears in each issue, recruited by the editors for their knowledge and insight into the topics at hand.

The ten volumes are:

• Alternative Schooling & School Choice
• Curriculum & Instruction
• Diversity in Schools
• Religion in Schools
• School Discipline & Safety
• School Finance
• School Governance
• School Law
• Standards & Accountability in Schools
• Technology in Schools

Within each volume, a dozen or more specific questions are put forward and argued in point/counterpoint essays by contributing authors. The variety of approaches and areas of focus brought to the series by the wide array of authors is a particular strength of the set. I found myself wondering before I sat down to review a volume if interest could be sustained in the topic overall when there were literally hundreds of pages spent on what seems from the outside to be subtle variations in the questions being debated. I found on more than one occasion that what had been meant to be a review of the essays ended up being an in-depth reading of more than half the volume. It is also rewarding when discussion of one particularly important study or Supreme Court Case is echoed or reinforced in another essay by another contributor. There is a real sense that the volumes are geared to build knowledge over a full reading of their essays. Some topics are broader than others and even eighteen essays are perhaps not enough to fully cover every nuance, but there is never a sense that any topic is being short changed.

The editors of the individual volumes also are diligent in making sure that the various themes and insights are part of a unified whole. Editors provide an introduction to the broad topic for that volume that often explains how individual questions were chosen for each topic as well as using history and context to build a throughline for the variety of essays covering those questions. Each question’s point/counterpoint essays also feature a detailed headnote by the volume editor that takes the same tack with the specific question, providing context for the essays to follow.

Contributing authors come from academia, think tanks, government, schools, and the law. They are all well-versed in their topic areas and seem well-chosen from a point/counterpoint perspective. It is clear that each author has had opportunities to review the other’s essay prior to publication and it is often interesting to see how a supporter of an issue addresses (or chooses not to address) the other’s contentions in his or her own essay. Subtlety often pays off more than direct contention.

And that I think is the main benefit of this, frankly, amazing collection of thought and discourse. Even if the topics are not relevant to you directly, the ways in which these issues are discussed and debated – including historical context and interpretation of studies and court decisions – are interesting in themselves.

We at the Fordham Institute are proud to have three contributors to the volume on Standards & Accountability in Schools, but for this reviewer personally it is the breadth of topics, the depth of knowledge, and the care in presentation of the material that really makes this reference set stand out. These are the topics that are uppermost in the minds of education stakeholders across the spectrum today, which require the deep knowledge and historical context in order to be properly addressed going forward.

What can Ohio schools learn from South Korean businesses? In a study published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior, Kiwook Kwon and Deborah E. Rupp examine the impact on firms when their high-performing employees leave their jobs.  Specifically, Kwon and Rupp analyze employee and performance data for 155 Korean firms, finding that organizations that invest in extensive selection practices, provide intensive training and development, and implement incentive-based pay suffer less when they lose high-performing employees. The researchers explain that firms focusing on human resources initiatives have staff that is more capable of filling the void left behind when a high-performing employee leaves their organization.

School can potentially learn from the experiences of these firms. Losing a high-performing teacher is difficult for any school. To mitigate the cost of losing a great teacher or administrator, school leaders must think about how to effectively implement human resources initiatives with their staff. As Governor Kasich has proposed a $300 million Straight-A-Fund to incentivize innovation, school leaders should consider applying for grants to develop better processes for hiring new teachers, effectively delivering in-service training, and implementing innovative human resources initiatives. While it will not have the wow factor of a new school building or high-tech equipment, developing a strong workforce can go a long way toward improving a school’s—and its students—chances for success.

SOURCE: Kwon, Kiwook, Deborah E. Rupp. “High-performer turnover and firm performance: The moderating role of human capital investment and firm reputation.”  Journal of Organizational Behavior 34, no. 1 (2013): 129-150.