The Education Gadfly Daily

Putting a Price Tag on the Common Core

May 30, 2012

Today, Fordham is releasing a new report on the costs of putting the Common Core State Standards into place around the country. Putting a Price Tag on the Common Core: How Much Will Smart Implementation Cost? estimates the implementation cost for each of the forty-five states (and the District of Columbia) that have adopted the Common Core State Standards and shows that costs naturally depend on how states approach implementation. Authors Patrick J. Murphy of the University of San Francisco and Elliot Regenstein of EducationCounsel LLC illustrate this with three models:

Download Putting a Price Tag on the Common Core to learn more.

Business as Usual. This “traditional” (and priciest) approach to standards-implementation involves buying hard-copy textbooks, administering annual student assessments on paper, and delivering in-person professional development to all teachers.

Bare Bones. This lowest-cost alternative employs open-source instructional materials, annual computer-administered assessments, and online professional development via webinars and modules.

Balanced Implementation. This is a blend of approaches, some of them apt to be effective as well as relatively cost-efficient.

The report examines the tradeoffs associated with each strategy and estimates how much the three approaches would cost each state that has adopted the Common Core. The authors also point out that, since states already invest billions annually in professional development, assessments, textbooks, and other expenses in connection with existing standards, proper forecasting of Common Core costs should “net out” the sums that states would spend anyway for activities that this implementation process will replace.

To learn more, download the report and watch this short video explaining the key findings:

Also, be sure to tune in to the webcast of this afternoon's panel discussion on the costs of implementation at 4 p.m. EDT, featuring Murphy, Achieve President Michael Cohen, former Florida Education Commissioner Eric J. Smith, and former Department of Education official and Common Core skeptic Ze'ev Wurman.

How much will the Common Core cost?

May 30, 2012

Download Putting a Price Tag on the Common Core to learn more.

It's a key question, but one without a simple answer. Fordham's latest report, Putting a Price Tag on the Common Core: How Much Will Smart Implementation Cost States and Districts?, explains how costs to states could range from $3 billion to $12 billion, depending on how states approach that challenge over the next several years, and describes different models for implementation available to states. For a primer on the report's findings check out posts on Education Week and Common Core Watch, or watch Fordham's VP for Research Amber Winkler's analysis. Or simply download the report.

Most importantly, don't forget to watch the 4p.m. EDT webcast of "Pricing the Common Core: How Much Will Smart Implementation Cost States and Districts?" This panel discussion feature's the report's co-author, Patrick J. Murphy, as well as Achieve President Michael Cohen, former Florida Education Commissioner Eric J. Smith, and former Education Department official—and noted Common Core skeptic—Ze'ev Wurman. Send along your questions for the panelists beforehand to questions@edexcellence.net or tweet them with #PricingCC.

“Voucherizing Title I” is worth a shot

May 29, 2012

As Jay Mathews perceptively observed over the weekend, and as others of us have been pointing out for a while, the Obama-Duncan team didn't leave a heckuva lot of education-reform terrain for Mitt Romney to occupy except for variations on the theme of vouchers. And occupy it he has done. But "voucherizing Title I" is not a new idea. I recall working with Bill Bennett on it—and Reagan then proposed it—a quarter century ago. Getting such a major change enacted would, I think, hinge not only on Governor Romney reaching the Oval Office but also on a GOP sweep in both houses of Congress. But getting it fully considered is well worth doing.

Why not try strapping the money to the backs of needy kids and letting them take it to the schools of their choice?

As America nears the half-century mark with Title I, we can fairly conclude that pumping all this money into districts to boost the budgets of schools serving disadvantaged kids hasn't done those kids much good, though it has surely been welcomed by revenue-hungry districts (and states). Evaluation after evaluation of Title I has shown it to have little or no positive impact, and everybody knows that the NCLB version of Title I hasn't done much good either. It has, however, yielded an enormous number of schools that we now know, without doubt, are doing a miserable job, particularly with disadvantaged kids, but we're having a dreadful time "turning around" those schools. One may fairly conclude that Title I in its present form isn't working and probably cannot.

So why not try strapping the money to the backs of needy kids and letting them take it to the schools of their choice? This would help them escape from dreadful schools. It would make them more "affordable" for the schools they move into. It would remove one of the main barriers (the non-portability of federal dollars) that discourages states and districts from moving toward "weighted student funding" with their own money. And it would certainly go a long way to change the balance of power in American education from producers to consumers.

Of course it is fraught with vast technical and implementation challenges. Big changes always are. And it's probably unwise to force it on states that really don't want to do it. But why not at least let those that want to try it? That's how welfare reform came about. Why not education reform?

Content matters: The real lessons we need to draw from elite schools

May 25, 2012

Education reform critics often compare the practices of elite private schools to those of traditional public schools serving our nation’s most disadvantaged students and are appalled by the differences they see. Just this morning, I saw a tweet from science teacher Aaron Reedy, retweeted to Diane Ravitch’s 30,000 followers, which said:

We need to look at what works for the wealthy and emulate that in all of our public schools.

Too many of us draw exactly the wrong lessons about what should be replicated from elite private (and public) schools.

It’s a familiar theme, and one that I—and many reformers—are sympathetic to. Unfortunately, when observing teaching and learning at elite private (and public) schools, too many of us draw exactly the wrong lessons about what should be replicated. And by doing so, we unintentionally promote strategies that end up widening the knowledge gap between children born to privilege and those born to poverty.

I wrote about this a year ago, responding to an article written by Alfie Kohn that accused urban schools in engaging in what he called “a pedagogy of poverty.” At the time, I argued:

A lot of education activists, like Alfie Kohn and Diane Ravitch, like to argue that urban schools should copy the instructional practices of elite private schools…

…What they are missing is what happens outside the classroom: the heavy reliance on parent involvement to help teach their students the key skills, knowledge and abilities they need to succeed. Teachers in these schools can, after all, assign hefty reading and writing assignments as homework because the typical middle class or affluent student goes home to a place where homework is valued and where parents can serve as a teacher-in-residence. That allows for much more flexibility in the school day and takes the pressure off getting every transition perfect or focusing every discussion toward an instructional end.

High-poverty schools simply don’t have that luxury.

But there is another, potentially more serious problem that is aptly illustrated in a recent article discussing the widely recognized and respected International Baccalaureate program. Here is how director general of IB, Jeffery Beard, describes the essential elements of the program:

The [IB] curriculum emphasizes teamwork, critical thinking skills, and cultural and linguistic fluency, and it encourages students to think about issues from different points of view.

The teacher will ask leading questions: Why is this important? Why do you think this way? Students are forced to articulate,” says Beard. Rather than lecture, teachers use discussion and writing assignments to pull out concepts. “It’s ‘explain, define, compare and contrast,’” he adds. “The skills they pick up, as a result, are at a much higher level.”

To be sure, those are important skills—skills that, for what it’s worth, are included in the Common Core. But what’s missing from this article—and, frankly, from far too many discussions about the value of elite programs and elite schools—is a discussion of the rigor of the material being studied. This is the critical what question: What students should be reading, learning, and discussing when they demonstrate mastery of essential analytical skills.

What students are reading, researching, and writing is at least as important as how teachers are pushing them to think.

Yes, we should absolutely push students to analyze and explain, to draw evidence from reading and research to support ideas, and to write for various audiences and purposes. However, what students are reading, researching, and writing is at least as important as how teachers are pushing them to think. And the rigor and content gap between elite schools and traditional schools, while less visible, is much more important that the gap in the way they engage with the materials and content they do use.

That is precisely why we need strong standards and content-rich curricula. (And it’s precisely why states need to take seriously the charge of adding the needed 15 percent content atop the CCSS.) Instructional practices, teaching styles, and critical thinking exercises matter very little if the content being taught is weak. And, historically, the content being taught in elite schools is just far more rigorous than the content being used to drive learning in schools serving our most disadvantaged students.

So, yes, by all means let’s find ways to drive better discussions in the classroom. But let’s also recognize that what makes those discussions work in America’s elite private schools is that they are built atop of solid foundation of rigorous content and hours and hours of practice.

Your guide to the Romney education plan

May 25, 2012

Mitt Romney unveiled his education plan on Wednesday, grabbing headlines and getting the education-policy community buzzing. While noting that Governor Romney’s proposal is a “good start,” Mike Petrilli wrote on Flypaper that the plan risks “replacing federal overreach on accountability with federal overreach.” For more analysis on this issue, watch Mike’s WSJ.com interview:

Don’t let the states off the hook for completing the Common Core

May 24, 2012

Nearly two years ago, as states weighed the decision of whether to adopt the Common Core ELA and math standards, they were told that they were allowed—encouraged, even—“to add an additional 15 percent on top of the core.”

The reality is that the CCSS were never meant to represent the totality of what states expected students to know and be able to do, particularly in ELA, where the introduction specifically warns:

The CCSS were never meant to represent the totality of what states expected students to know and be able to do,

Furthermore, while the Standards make references to some particular forms of content, including mythology, foundational U.S. documents, and Shakespeare, they do not—indeed, cannot—enumerate all or even most of the content that students should learn.

Yet, despite the freedom that states have to take ownership over the standards and add the critical content teachers and leaders need to guide curriculum and instruction, only eleven states added even a single new word to the core. And in many cases, what was added was barely more than window dressing. Some of the eleven states focused on changing the format, with minimal changes to the content. Others added minor statements, phrases or clarification. (Alabama, for instance, added three standards to the K-12 math standards and seventeen “statements” to the K-12 ELA standards. Montana merely added “cultural context” to the existing CCSS.) And a few added some specific content to further clarify the intent of the standards.

That’s why, in the absence of further clarification from state leaders about what ELA content should be added atop the standards, critics and supporters alike have taken to deconstructing virtually every speech or presentation that David Coleman has given since CCSS adoption. In fact, it’s become a bit of a cottage industry to pick apart every offhand comment he’s made and every presentation he’s given. Of course, there is much we can learn about the intent of the standards from Coleman, but it’s foolish for leaders to look to these isolated and illustrative examples for specific guidance about the content teachers should focus on when aligning their curriculum and instruction to the Common Core. To do justice to that question, teachers need the additional 15 percent, coupled with a content-rich curriculum.

And yet, that’s precisely what critics seek to do. As just one example, Jim Stergios penned a blog post for the Boston Globe last week where he criticized a video created by David Coleman that was meant to draw attention to the specific skills (analysis, drawing evidence from the text, etc.) that the Common Core ELA ask teachers of science and history/social studies to focus on. Stergios took particular issue with an offhand comment Coleman made about Federalist 51, arguing:

Madison’s Federalist #51 isn’t about “faction.” I know you repeat this point over and over in the video tutorial. But, as any well-educated 10th-grader knows (at least in Massachusetts before we switched to the national standards), Federalist #51 is actually about checks and balances.

Nevermind that the CCSS ELA standards for history/social studies do not actually replace the existing Massachusetts standards for those subjects, which Stergios seems to imply. The larger point is that Coleman’s exemplar has no connection to any actual curriculum. Instead, it is merely meant to explain the kinds of close reading that social students and science teachers should engage in as they read important informational text in class. (Something it does effectively.)

The fundamental problem is that too many states have left such a huge void in their Common Core implementation and communication plans that reporters and critics are left to pick through old Coleman YouTube videos to try and figure out exactly what should be taught.

A simpler approach would be to look to Coleman for guidance about the intent of the standards themselves, and to look to states to fill in the content gaps that the CCSS authors have always acknowledged were there.

Talking Common Core and human capital in the Gem City

May 23, 2012

It is the aim of the Common Core (see above) that all students will be college- or career-ready by the time they graduate from high school. One organization working to make this goal a reality in Fordham’s hometown of Dayton is Learn to Earn Dayton. Last week the Fordham Institute teamed up with Learn to Earn Dayton to host a community conversation, “What does the Common Core Mean for Dayton and its Human Capital Development Strategies?”

The event brought together leaders from the business and education community to discuss the future of Dayton and the potential impact the Common Core can have on the city. The event featured Stan Heffner, state superintendent of public instruction; Mike Cohen, president of Achieve; Ellen Belcher, author of our recent report on Common Core implementation; and David Ponitz, president emeritus of Sinclair Community College and chairman of the board of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Stan Heffner, state superintendent of public instruction and Mike Cohen, president of Achieve

Superintendent Heffner explained that the Common Core standards will help Ohio move from the minimum toward a path that allows kids to be college and career ready. He acknowledged that the transition will be rough and that it will scare some people but in the end people will rise to the occasion, and kids will be asked to do more and better. Mike Cohen, one of the national leaders who has led the development of the Common Core, spoke of the national significance of these new academic standards. Cohen shared that the standards will set the expectations we want our students to learn and should drive and improve instruction. He also explained that while test scores will likely drop as the standards come on-line it would be wrong to retreat and weaken the standards or the assessment that go with them. Ellen Belcher closed out the event by highlighting some of the major findings from Future Shock: Early Common Core Lessons from Ohio (see above).

The need for higher academic standards is needed more now than ever. Dayton ranks 72^nd in educational attainment among the top 100 largest metro areas in the US and only 14.4 percent of Dayton residents hold a bachelor’s degree. Nationally the city’s educational achievement in mathematics is lagging and by the twelfth grade we are at the bottom of the barrel compared to other countries.

The Common Core standards have the potential to help put Dayton, Ohio and the country on a path toward higher achievement. The Common Core is a necessary step forward and while the road to success might not be easy and surely won’t come without challenges it is essential for the future of children that we get it right.

The Romney education plan: Replacing federal overreach on accountability with federal overreach on school choice

May 23, 2012

Governor Mitt Romney’s long-awaited education address happened on Wednesday, but the most telling news broke Tuesday, when we learned that Margaret Spellings is no longer one of his education advisors. She quit on principle, I assume, because Romney decided to turn the page on No Child Left Behind. As his campaign’s education “talking points” read, “Governor Romney’s plan reforms [NCLB] by emphasizing transparency and responsibility for results. Rather than federally-mandated school interventions, states would have incentives to create straightforward public report cards that evaluate each school on its contribution to student learning.” (Read his thirty-four-page education policy white paper here.)

Gov. Romney wants to make Title I and IDEA dollars portable—a worthy idea, just make it voluntary.
Photo by Austin Hufford

Today, there’s not a single Republican in the House of Representatives, in the Senate, or running for president willing to defend federal accountability mandates. The GOP conversation has shifted to transparency, in line with what we’ve called Reform Realism. What a difference a decade makes.

The thrust of Romney’s speech, however, wasn’t his fresh view of accountability, but a major proposal on school choice. Romney wants to make Title I and IDEA dollars portable—a form of “backpack funding” from the federal level. (This one’s very much in line with what the Hoover Institution’s K-12 Education Task Force proposed in February. It’s also close kin to what Ronald Reagan and Bill Bennett proposed for Title I back in the late 1980s.) He said:

As President, I will give the parents of every low-income and special needs student the chance to choose where their child goes to school. For the first time in history, federal education funds will be linked to a student, so that parents can send their child to any public or charter school, or to a private school, where permitted. And I will make that choice meaningful by ensuring there are sufficient options to exercise it.

To receive the full complement of federal education dollars, states must provide students with ample school choice. In addition, digital learning options must not be prohibited. And charter schools or similar education choices must be scaled up to meet student demand.

There’s a lot to be said for making federal dollars follow disadvantaged children to their schools of choice:

It provides incentives for good schools to attract needy kids;

It helps those kids exit dreadful schools;

It promotes integration by allowing federal funds to flow to schools that are socioeconomically mixed; and

It encourages states to make their own funding more portable (a la weighted student funding)—with all manner of benefits around equity, choice, and more.

But it’s not without drawbacks:

It could move federal funds away from high-poverty schools (which get most Title I dollars today) to low-poverty ones;

Unless states and districts move their money, too, the amount ($1,000-2,000 per pupil) isn’t enough to pay for actual private-school tuition, so that part isn’t apt to get much real traction; and

By giving parents “private accounts” to spend on digital learning, tutoring, and the like, it could weaken schools’ larger improvement efforts, which are mostly funded by these federal dollars.

The biggest concern comes with having Uncle Sam try to use his ten cents on the education dollar to foist major changes on the states.
Photo by Mollie McCabe.

The biggest concern, though, comes with having Uncle Sam try to use his ten cents on the education dollar to foist major changes on the states. We’ve seen how that works (or doesn’t) in the context of accountability; why do we think it will work better in the context of school choice?

See this passage, in particular, from Romney’s education white paper:

To expand the supply of high-performing schools in and around districts serving low-income and special-needs students, states accepting Title I and IDEA funds will be required to take a series of steps to encourage the development of quality options: First, adopt open-enrollment policies that permit eligible students to attend public schools outside of their school district that have the capacity to serve them. Second, provide access to and appropriate funding levels for digital courses and schools, which are increasingly able to offer materials tailored to the capabilities and progress of each student when used with the careful guidance of effective teachers. And third, ensure that charter school programs can expand to meet demand, receive funding under the same formula that applies to all other publicly-supported schools, and access capital funds.

Note especially the phrase, “will be required.” We’ve been down that road before! And note how far this proposal is from the “let states do whatever they want with their federal dollars” approach of House education-committee chairman John Kline.

A better idea might be to take a page from the Obama administration's handbook and make funding portability voluntary. Give states the option to “voucherize” their Title I and IDEA funds. Make them take the steps above in order to participate in that option. Maybe offer a little extra money on top. And see if you get any takers. That’s a way to promote innovation and choice without falling into the same federalism trap that snared No Child Left Behind. And states that opt into it would very likely make their own dollars portable, too.

This plan is a good start. You’ve got five and a half months till Election Day, Governor Romney, to make it even better.

A race to fix education governance?

May 22, 2012

Much will swiftly be written about Arne Duncan's brand-new Race to the Top competition for school districts (and, interestingly, for charter schools and consortia of schools), and it's premature to say much on the basis of early press accounts. But Alyson Klein's invaluable Ed Week blog flags one fascinating tidbit that suggests a welcome new Education Department focus on the failings of today's school-governance arrangements:

Will the NSBA and AASA react angrily to this goring of their own members' oxen?

Just to be eligible, districts by the 2014-15 school year will have to promise to implement evaluation systems that take student outcomes into account—not just for teacher and principal performance, but for district superintendents and school boards. That's a big departure from the state-level Race to the Top competitions, which just looked at educators who actually work in schools, not district-level leaders. [Emphasis added]

How very refreshing, even exhilarating, to see the inclusion of superintendents and boards in a results-based accountability system, rather than the customary focus only on schools and their principals and teachers (and sometimes the kids themselves). Will the NSBA and AASA react angrily to this goring of their own members' oxen? Or will they—as they should—welcome this logical and potentially powerful widening of the theory and practice of accountability?

“Rules Proposed for District Race to Top Contest,” Alyson Klein, Politics K-12 blog, May 22, 2012.

Will economics increase school choice?

May 22, 2012

In a turn of events that reflects today’s economic and fiscal realities, the Reynoldsburg City Schools’ board of education approved an open enrollment policy last week. The decision is noteworthy as Reynoldsburg will become the first of Columbus’ suburban public districts to adopt an open enrollment policy.

Under Ohio’s open enrollment policy, public school districts can voluntarily admit students from other districts, at no cost to the student. Districts throughout the state have generally adopted open enrollment; nearly eighty percent of Ohio’s 664 public schools districts participate in open enrollment according to the Ohio Department of Education. However, few open enrollment districts are located near Ohio’s metropolitan areas, a fact shown in the chart below.

Figure: Number of districts adopting open enrollment by Ohio metro area, 2011-12

Source: Ohio Department of Education. Note: District count is based on the county in which the major city is located.

A district of nearly 6,000 students, Reynoldsburg City Schools serves the middle-class, eastern suburbs of Columbus. The district maintains an “excellent” rating from the state (its second-highest rating), and around eighty to ninety percent of its students reach proficiency in math and reading every year. Open enrollment risks these sterling academic marks. Due to Reynoldsburg’s proximity to Columbus City Schools, the district may absorb lower-caliber students from disadvantaged parts of the city who are seeking a better schooling option.

What has induced Reynoldsburg to change its policy? Principles of school choice? Compassion for kids stuck in Columbus’ low-performing east-side schools? Neither. Rather, economic reality has compelled the change. With a projected deficit of $3.5 million for next school year, Reynoldsburg residents were given two options: either raise property taxes, or adopt open enrollment, a policy that would bring $5,700 per open-enrollment student. When faced with the choice of higher taxes or open enrollment, Reynoldsburg’s board, with resident support, approved open enrollment. In an interview with a local paper, one Reynoldsburg resident, who had been initial skeptical of open enrollment, voiced her support after a public meeting with school officials, “Without adding any cost to our community, an open enrollment policy would bring in additional revenue and families eager for quality education.”

In a piece in last week’s “Choice Words” blog, my colleague Adam Emerson, narrates the unfortunate story of how a high-performing Louisiana district has refused to enroll voucher students from outside their district. (See also Rick Hess’ reply and Emerson’s rejoinder.) In a courageous—though economically self-interested—move, Reynoldsburg provides evidence that not every suburban district is busily pitching iron fences around its schools. In certain situations, open enrollment can generate win-wins—for outside families wanting a better school and for families inside the district wanting tax relief. And if Reynoldsburg can successfully manage its open enrollment program, we may soon find other suburban schools following suit, expanding school choice for students and parents living in Ohio’s metro areas.

Tax-credit scholarships need a critical, not hostile, eye

May 22, 2012

It’s hard to get past the New York Times’s animus toward anything “private” or profit-seeking in the realm of K-12 education, particularly when investigative reporter Stephanie Saul applies her own biased and acidic pen to the topic. And Tuesday’s interminable “expose” of state-level tax-credit scholarship programs certainly deepens one’s impression that the writer (and, presumably, her editors) is in love with anything that smacks of “public dollars” or “public schools” and at war with anything that might be seen as diverting even a penny from state coffers into the hands of parents to educate their kids at schools of their choice. Never mind whether the public schools they are exiting are good or bad, nor whether the dollars being spent by those schools are well targeted on high-quality instruction or frittered away on over-generous benefits for underemployed custodians and their retired pals.

Tax-credit scholarship programs must be well designed and monitored or more "exposes" over how dollars are distributed will follow.
Photo by Images Money.

Having gotten that out of the way, it’s also worth learning that while some of these state programs (especially Florida’s) are models of sound policy, efficient administration, and careful targeting of available resources, some others appear to be burdened by dubious practices on the part of schools, donors, elected officials, and maybe parents, too.

First, a brief refresher on what these programs are and how they work. Eight states allow individuals or corporations to take a full or partial credit against their state taxes for contributions they make to nonprofit groups that award private-school scholarships. Some states, like Florida, award scholarships only to low-income students. Others, such as the programs in Arizona and Georgia, place no income restrictions on eligibility. None excludes participation in religious schooling (and, in fact, the majority of scholarship students attend faith-based schools).

Yes, they are cousins of voucher programs but they don’t involve checks written by the state (or district) to private schools, using money that has already entered the public coffers. The money, in fact, never enters the state treasury. Such programs thus skirt some of the statutory and constitutional obstacles that get in the way of vouchers—and in many cases enjoy smoother political sailing as well.

If Ms. Saul is to be believed, however, some of these programs are vulnerable to various forms of misbehavior, including parents getting cash in their pockets, politicians deciding which schools should benefit, even donors getting tax credits while underwriting particular students.

These programs involve credits against state taxes. Hence a state’s tax code determines what is and isn’t kosher. Certainly some of these alleged practices wouldn’t be acceptable to the Internal Revenue Service. (For example, one cannot make a gift to a college or school that is then used to provide tuition relief to one’s own kid. If that were allowed, nobody would pay tuition to Princeton; they’d make gifts instead—and benefit from the tax deduction.)

Even in Ms. Saul’s telling, it’s evident (from the Florida example) that such programs can be meticulously designed, well run, and close to fool proof. But it also appears that some are loosey-goosey and vulnerable to chicanery. Which raises the question of whose job it is to set them right on behalf of the kids, parents, educators, and taxpayers who have every reason to expect that?

The state, of course, should do much of this. It’s a state program and the state equivalent of the IRS should be monitoring its collection and distribution of money. State watchdog agencies, too, should ensure that taxpayers are benefitting, as has happened in Florida. The state education department (or local school system) should be ensuring that the kids who benefit from it are attending bona fide educational institutions that satisfy the applicable requirements for private schools to operate in that jurisdiction. And legislatures should examine the academic impact of these programs, as greater transparency often weeds out schools with shaky credentials and questionable business practices.

But aspects of this go well beyond state government and could well be superior to it. Should the private school “community,” such as it is, be monitoring its own members for their participation in and handling of such aid programs? (What is the Council for American Private Education and its state affiliates for?) How about the accrediting bodies that typically review many aspects of private schools and allow them (if they pass muster) to declare that they are accredited? What about advocacy groups (such as the American Federation for Children) that press for the expansion and replication of such programs and that presumably have an interest in their integrity and reputation? The private foundations (e.g. Friedman, Walton, DeVos) that underwrite such efforts? Why does this sector of school choice have no counterpart to the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) to promulgate a code of sound practices and invite membership from organizations that adhere to these?

The more such entities do to ensure sound practices in state-level tax-credit-scholarship programs, the less temptation there will be for government agencies to clamp down on them, with likely adverse effects on legitimate schools and needy pupils.

And the less that hostile publications like the Times and "gotcha" journalists like Ms. Saul will have with which to make mischief.

PS: It’s not just “private” and “profit” that she abhors. Her piece on Tuesday was really a model of take-no-prisoners left-wing journalism! She hit at least five hot buttons: privatization, football, evolution, fundamentalism, and fracking! Somehow she missed climate change, phonics, and traditional family units.

Ed. note: Adam Emerson previously contributed to policy and public affairs initiatives for Step Up For Students, the scholarship organization responsible for administering the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship for low-income students.

Implementation, implementation, implementation

May 21, 2012

As Kathleen noted in a blog post on Saturday:

Download "Future shock: Early Common Core implementation lessons from Ohio."

There isn’t a Common Core supporter in the nation who hasn’t qualified her enthusiasm for what the standards can do with “if they are implemented properly.” On the other hand, I’m not sure there’s a Common Core opponent who isn’t standing in the wings, waiting for implementation to fail.

She went on to explain why Common Core implementers must be willing to take risks, fail, and, most importantly, learn from their mistakes if the project is to succeed. Now, Fordham’s Ohio team has released a useful tool for Common Core advocates looking to avoid miscues by learning from the challenges others have already faced in the implementation process. In a new report, “Future shock: Early Common Core implementation lessons from Ohio,” veteran journalist Ellen Belcher provides the perspectives of educators working at schools around the Buckeye State that are leading the way at putting the rigorous new standards into practice. With luck, these insights into what is working—and what hasn’t worked so far—will help educators around the country through the implementation hurdles that lie ahead.

To learn more about the challenges of Common Core implementation download the full report and sign up to attend or webcast our upcoming Fordham LIVE! discussion, “Pricing the Common Core: How Much Will Smart Implementation Cost States and Districts,” on May 30.

"Devil's in the details"

May 21, 2012

Fordham’s latest publication “Future Shock: Early Common Core Implementation Lessons from Ohio” reports Ohio’s progress in implementing the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Fordham selected award-winning journalist Ellen Belcher to interview fifteen educators to elicit on-the-ground responses about how well the Common Core is being implemented. We encourage you to read the entire report, which can be downloaded here. But to whet your appetite, we provide here a short summary and a few quotes that illustrate the unifying themes of this report.

Adopted by the Buckeye State in 2010 and to be implemented starting in 2014-15, CCSS establishes a framework for what K-12 students across the country are expected to learn. For many students, CCSS will raise their standard of learning, and our interviewees universally champion these higher standards. The transition to the more demanding standards also concerns educators, who worry about anything from training teachers to online assessments to purchasing textbooks. Kimbre Lange, an Oakwood City Schools teacher, sums up educators’ optimism for the Core but peppered with caution: “We all get the big picture, but the devil is in the details.”

Buy-In for the Core

Greater Depth in Core Standards

“The horror of having too much to teach is less (under the Common Core).” Steve Dackin, Reynoldsburg City Schools

“Teachers have confidence in the Core. They believe that less is more.” Eric Gordon, Cleveland Metropolitan School District

“I’m very inspired. Finally we’re being allowed to do what we knew was right.” Katie Hofmann, Cincinnati Public Schools

Opportunities for Collaboration

“Opening up the world of education to small districts…It’s critical to be able to talk to colleagues outside of your neighborhood.” Tony Dunn, Belpre City School District

“Our network has increased. Now we can tap into other states.” Dee Martindale, Reynoldsburg City Schools

High Standards for All Students

“This is not your Mom and Dad’s high school. We’re raising the bar for all kids.” Steve Dackin, Reynoldsburg City Schools

“We need to standardize things so children are not crippled by their zip code.” Tony Dunn, Belpre City School District

Concerns about Core Implementation

Teaching Models and Materials

“The Ohio Department of Education should give good models to show what quality work looks like.” Dee Martindale, Reynoldsburg City Schools

“Our materials are not designed for the depth of the Common Core.” Eric Gordon, Cleveland Metropolitan City School District

“I don’t think the vendors understand it yet, even though they say they do.” Sheila Radke, Cincinnati Public Schools

Instructional Style Changes

“The instruction should look different.” Laura Mitchell, Cincinnati Public Schools

“If you go into a classroom and kids are working quietly, you better question what’s going on.” Katie Hofmann, Cincinnati Public Schools

“They [administrators] better hear some noise.” Sheila Radtke, Cincinnati Public Schools

2014-15 Report Card Results

“Parents won’t understand how severe it [the change] is until that report card is on the evening news.” Paul Scott, Ohio Connections Academy

Charter and catholic schools can coexist

May 21, 2012

I have spent years working in both Catholic and charter schools—I am Catholic, and a huge proponent and supporter of Catholic education. And I am deeply saddened by the loss of urban Catholic schools. And I certainly welcome a national conversation about how we can save them and have always appreciated Diane Ravitch's support for these critical schools.

Several factors began draining urban Catholic schools long before the first charters even opened.

But, to suggest, as Ravitch did in a recent post, that there is a direct, causal relationship between the proliferation of charters and the closing of urban Catholic schools seems to me to ignore the impact of several things that have been draining urban Catholic schools long before the first charters even opened.

For starters, it’s a well-known fact that the decline in the number of religious (nuns, priests, etc.) who are available to teach in Catholic schools is a major problem. Catholic schools long relied on the cheap labor that was supplied by nuns in particular, and now that schools have to increasingly rely on lay faculty, parishes that serve our most disadvantaged students have had a very difficult time making ends meet. This problem is obviously particular acute in urban areas where the number of Catholic families supporting the parishes has declined and where the financial need of the students served by the schools has grown considerably.

To make matters worse, though, the support for urban Catholic schools among diocesan leaders is often far too weak. In fact, there are far too many who believe that urban Catholic schools should close. There are pastors who’ve been assigned to parishes with schools who have no experience—or interest—in running a school and who see financially strapped schools as a drain on their already scarce resources. And there are too many Diocesan leaders who do not believe that keeping urban Catholic schools—which often serve far more non-Catholics than Catholics—open is a top priority.

Closing charter schools—or preventing the opening of more—will simply not turn the tide in favor of urban Catholic schools.

Of course, there are several visionary leaders around the country who believe keeping urban schools open is critical–including the late James Cardinal Hickey who famously (and inspiringly) noted that “we don’t education [urban] students because THEY are Catholic, but because WE are.” But there has been far too little movement among Catholic leadership writ large to make saving urban Catholic schools the priority it should be. (The work being done in the Archdiocese of NY to rethink school funding is, I think, very promising and may do more to help slow, or even reverse, the closing of urban schools than isolated philanthropy could do.)

To be sure, the emergence of urban charter schools has given poor parents more choices—and, frankly, more affordable choices, since many simply could not afford to continue to pay the even very low tuition that Catholic schools required. But closing charter schools—or preventing the opening of more—will simply not turn the tide in favor of urban Catholic schools. The best, or perhaps the only, way to save Catholic schools is for Catholic leaders—lay and religious alike—to make the commitment we need to keeping these schools alive. And in the meantime, closing or limiting charter options will only further limit the options available to urban parents who desperately crave better choices for their children.

This post was also submitted as a comment on Diane Ravitch's blog.

Failure is (and must be) an option

May 19, 2012

“There are no secrets to success. It is the result of preparation, hard work, and learning from failure.”

—Colin Powell

There isn’t a Common Core supporter in the nation who hasn’t qualified her enthusiasm for what the standards can do with “if they are implemented properly.” On the other hand, I’m not sure there’s a Common Core opponent who isn’t standing in the wings, waiting for implementation to fail.

It’s only by allowing the chance for failure that standards can have any real meaning.

This is often the point in a new initiative when supporters feel most vulnerable and start scrambling to figure out how to avoid high profile failures. But, if we’ve going to succeed in this venture, we shouldn’t be trying to avoid failure, we should be looking to shine a spotlight on it and embrace it as a key element of change. It’s only by allowing the chance for failure that standards can have any real meaning.

This is something that KIPP understands intimately. KIPP has become perhaps the most well-known charter model not just because it was the first CMO to achieve national scale, but also because it’s been consistently the most successful. There are KIPP schools around the country that beat the odds and that do amazing things for the students in their care.

Of course, there are also KIPP schools that haven’t lived up to the promise of the best among them. Schools that opened to great promise, but whose achievement lagged, or whose doors were forced to close due to poor management, low test scores, or a failure to raise enough money.

The reason KIPP has so many schools worth celebrating is exactly because they accept that failure may well be a critical element of success.

Some may point to those schools—the “failures”—as proof that network isn’t worthy of the praise it often receives. In reality, though, the opposite is true. The reason KIPP has so many schools worth celebrating is exactly because they accept that failure may well be a critical element of success.

The KIPP model differs from many traditional public school districts in a few important ways. First, their model is entrepreneurial. Whereas most principals serve effectively as middle managers who report to—and are often constrained by—state and district leaders, KIPP principals are true CEOs. While they receive support from the network, they are free to use or ignore whatever suggestions they’re given. And they rise and fall on their own merit.

This freedom is no doubt scary to the central office, which watches as school leaders make less-than-ideal decisions. But it’s also what allows for the innovation that has enabled KIPP schools to make extraordinary gains in difficult situations.

Second, KIPP doesn’t hide its failure. On the contrary, they set a clear standard, and shine an unflinching spotlight on both their successes and their failures through the KIPP report cards.

Third, KIPP has learned from the often-cited business maxim that organizations should “feed success and starve failure.” KIPP leaders focus their energy on growing success—on investing heavily in the teachers, leaders, and schools that demonstrate the greatest promise and that deserve to see their work reach the lives of more kids. Schools that fail year after year to meet this high standard are shut down or removed from the network.

This tolerance for failure and investment in success is fairly unique to KIPP. Too many state and district policies are focused on avoiding failure—sometimes at all costs. And, while such policies might avoid catastrophic failure, they are a poor recipe for success.

As we look towards Common Core implementation, and even as we see sharks in the water circling and waiting for us to fail, we need to focus our efforts on setting a high bar for successful implementation, highlighting both what is working and what is not, and then vigorously pursuing a policy of scaling up what works and shutting down what doesn’t. Having the confidence to embrace the necessity of these failures is what will allow us to succeed.

The Gadfly Daily’s week in review

May 19, 2012

The Gadfly Daily featured commentary and analysis on everything from Louisiana to LIFO. Here’s a quick roundup of what bloggers were saying:

“Unionized charter schools may make good sense for the unions themselves,” cautioned Terry Ryan on the Ohio Gadfly Daily, “but they would be a set-back for school improvement efforts in the Buckeye State.”

Guest blogger Michelle Rhee warned on Board’s Eye View of an overarching approach to education policy that hurts children: “Too often decisions are made and policies are set based on the interests of adults in the system rather than student needs.”

On the anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision, Mike Petrilli noted on Flypaper that “the question today, as for the past twenty years or so (when the forcible desegregation movement ran out of steam), is what can be done to better integrate our schools?”

On Choice Words, Adam Emerson described a Louisiana “community that has chosen to erect a fence around its public schools.”

“Layoffs disrupt schools, students, and teachers no matter how they are implemented,” argued guest blogger Rebecca Sibilia on Stretching the School Dollar, “but LIFO policies only exacerbate the situation by forcing many great teachers out of the classroom without regard to the quality of their work and disrupting the education of more students than needed.”

On Common Core Watch, Kathleen wrote that Common Core supporters “shouldn’t be trying to avoid failure, we should be looking to shine a spotlight on it and embrace it as a key element of change.”

To stay on top of all of Fordham’s commentary, subscribe to the Gadfly Daily’s combined RSS feed and don’t forget to watch the replay of yesterday’s discussion from Columbus, “Digital Learning: The Future of Schooling?”

Digital learning: The future of schooling?

May 18, 2012

The era of the chalkboard is over. Laptops, SMART boards, Wikis, YouTube, and Gaming are in. Is this progress or just distraction? That was the topic of conversation among over 250 educators at Fordham’s “Digital Learning: The Future of Schooling?” event yesterday. (Please check out the video replay here.)

Ohio State Superintendent Stan Heffner opened the event by laying out the problematic mix of technology, education, and kids: “Kids spend their nights in high-tech bedrooms and spend their days in low-tech classrooms.”

“Kids spend their nights in high-tech bedrooms and spend their days in low-tech classrooms."

The remainder of the conversation focused on how to harness kids’ aptitude in technology for effective educational practices.

Fordham – and our event partners, KnowledgeWorks and the Nord Family Foundation –assembled an elite group of digital learning experts and Ohio practitioners to explore best practices and policies. The event’s first panel consisted of four national experts (U.S. Department of Education’s Karen Cator, Public Impact’s Bryan Hassel, iNACOL’s Susan Patrick, and Getting Smart’s Tom Vander Ark), each of whom emphasized the promise and inevitability of digital learning in the classroom.

A few of their recommendations included:

Colleges of education should equip future teachers to leverage technology in their classrooms.
Schools should exploit technology to create a multi-faceted student assessment system rather than rely on a single-test assessment.
Schools should leverage technology to enable excellent teachers to reach more students through video-fed lessons.

The second panel included two Ohio lawmakers (State Senator Peggy Lehner and State Representative Timothy Derickson) and two Ohio education practitioners (Reynoldsburg Superintendent Steve Dackin, who has made his district a leader in blended learning innovation in Ohio, and Susan Stagner of Connections Academy, one of Ohio’s several full-time, online schools). These panelists described the benefits and obstacles to a quality, digitally-infused learning environment. Some of their observations about the benefits of digital learning included:

Schools have successfully used blended learning environments in flexible credit hour programs.
Schools have used digital learning environments to provide options to parents within a district. One Ohio district, for example, uses traditional learning environments in two of its high schools, while another high school—a STEM magnet school—uses blended learning approaches.
Schools have used technology-based solutions to sustain high-quality education during periods of budget cuts.

Terry Ryan with Ohio Educator and Legislator Panel

They also provided cautions about digital learning, which included:

Students often express their interest in having teachers in their lives, even when given the option of digital versus traditional classrooms.
Political circumstances often constrain school officials from taking risks in technological investments.
Lawmakers have difficulty defining “blended learning” in legislation because the digital-learning ecosystem changes quickly and is so vast.

Harvard professor Chris Dede writes, “The 21st century is quite different than the 20th in the capabilities people need for work, citizenship, and self-actualization.” Yesterday’s event reminded us of that fact. Indeed, technology holds the promise of creating powerful learning environments that expand students’ skill sets.

Several schools around the country have already achieved results using tech-based learning—Rocketship and Carpe Diem were two commonly referenced examples by panelists. For the Buckeye State, which has only recently dipped its toes into these murky waters (aside from full-time e-schools, which have operated here for more than a decade), successful integration of technology into the classroom will require significant investment—in teachers who can utilize technology, in hardware and software infrastructure, and in a policy framework that grants schools flexibility to apply digital learning to meet their students’ unique learning needs.

Should suburban fears drive school choice policy?

May 18, 2012

Rick Hess made some fair points when he argued yesterday that I was wrong to “lecture” Louisiana’s Zachary Community School District for not participating in Governor Bobby Jindal’s school choice plan. It’s certainly true that suburban parents and taxpayers have legitimate concerns when they worry about opening the floodgates to disadvantaged students coming into their schools. Even in rich suburbs, resources aren’t unlimited, and working with extreme academic diversity is no easy task.

It just looks callous to reverse an effort that would have placed no financial burden on the district.

What Hess probably doesn’t know is that the situation in Zachary is more complex. There the superintendent and school board embraced a plan to take in just thirty low-income and low-achieving students from other districts under the state’s new voucher program before the school community told them to back down. A flood of new students this was not.

Zachary schools are Louisiana’s best. And Republican Governor Bobby Jindal had schools like that in mind when he pushed for legislation awarding more public and private options to low-income kids in schools rated C, D, or F. In late April, Zachary schools Superintendent Warren Drake said his district could “make a difference” for these kids and devised a plan to accept fifteen kindergarteners and fifteen first-graders using vouchers. That would have come to just 4 percent of the district’s current kindergarten and first-grade enrollment of 769.

Drake scrapped that plan less than two weeks later, citing a need to focus on Zachary students first as the state placed higher expectations on academic performance. What changed? Parents and others in the community demanded that school leaders renege on their pledge. And in a statement that followed, Drake acknowledged “the sacrifices many of our own families make to provide their students with a first-rate education.”

Suburbanites aren’t going to willingly erode the quality of their schools and the value of their homes.

This reluctance is not unusual among parents and property owners who fear that open enrollment policies would weaken schools and neighborhoods that demand their hard work and sacrifice. And I concede I should have more fairly acknowledged this concern. But it just looks callous to reverse an effort that would have placed no financial burden on the district—full public funding would have accompanied each voucher student—and would have increased its total enrollment of 5,235 by less than 1 percent.

Beyond Zachary, the larger question is worth asking: Do we believe in “zip code education” or not? Do the public schools belong to everybody, or just to the parents and taxpayers in their catchment zones?

Hess clearly sees this as an issue of property rights—and pragmatic politics. Suburbanites aren’t going to willingly erode the quality of their schools and the value of their homes. The question for the school choice movement is whether we should take such realities as a given. What do you think?

The other problem with LIFO

Rebecca Sibilia — May 17, 2012

Guest blogger Rebecca Sibilia is the director of fiscal strategy for StudentsFirst.

School leaders in cities, school districts, and states across the country continue to grapple with revenue shortfalls that often require teacher layoffs. Unfortunately, the impact of these layoffs is exacerbated when schools are required to use Last-In, First-Out (LIFO) policies, which require layoffs to be issued in the order of reverse seniority, because such rules mean more teachers, of all skill levels, will lose their jobs.

While the problems of quality-blind layoffs that force good teachers out of the classroom are obvious, the way these policies exacerbate the disruptive impact of teacher layoffs is also important. LIFO not only hurts students by firing newer teachers regardless of their performance, it also harms students and teachers by requiring that districts lay off a greater numbers of teachers than they would need to let go in a system that was based on performance.

A recent study in Education Next showed that only 16 percent of teachers laid-off under LIFO would also be laid-off in a system that uses performance, rather than seniority, as the deciding factor. Good teachers can be found at every level of experience. When districts make quality-based layoffs, we assume that an equal number of veteran and new teachers will be affected. Because teachers are typically paid based on their years of experience, this means that layoffs based on effectiveness will more likely produce savings closer to an average teacher salary, instead of a new teacher salary, which is usually significantly lower. As a result, fewer teachers would need to be laid off to achieve the same level of budget reductions.

Visual depiction reprinted from The New Teacher Project, “The Case Against Quality-Blind Teacher Layoffs” Philanthropy Roundtable 2011.

California’s revised budget, released this week, proposes a state-wide cut of $656.7 million from K-12 education funding above and beyond cuts districts had already planned for should voters not approve a tax increase this November. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), California teachers in their first five years of teaching make $47,313 compared to the statewide average salary of $69,783, a difference of $22,470. This difference means that 47.5 percent more teachers stand to lose their jobs under California’s LIFO requirements than if a quality-based layoff system was implemented. We estimated that based on the $656.7 million cut, California schools will be required to lay off 8,328 teachers, but if districts were allowed to make layoff decisions on the basis of quality, they could save as many as 2,682 teachers statewide, and avoid disrupting the educations of 80,000 students.

Just as California school districts may have to issue additional lay off notices, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania needs to take steps to close a budget deficit of $21 million, caused by a rapid loss of state revenue and other compounding costs.However, unlike California, Pennsylvania state law requires LIFO policies unless the local school board and teacher union agree to a different layoff practice. The Pittsburgh School Board voted overwhelmingly in April to attempt to work with their local union to renegotiate the teacher’s contract to consider measures of effectiveness in future dismissals. According to the NCES, new teachers in Pennsylvania earn $43,098 per year compared to the average teacher salary of $57,567, a difference of $14,469. Because of this difference, Pittsburgh will have to lay off at least an estimated 33 percent more teachers if it is forced to retain its current LIFO policy. This would affect 1,417 more students than in a quality-based system.

Layoffs disrupt schools, students, and teachers no matter how they are implemented, but LIFO policies only exacerbate the situation by forcing many great teachers out of the classroom without regard to the quality of their work and disrupting the education of more students than needed.

Students testify in favor of Cleveland Plan

May 16, 2012

Yesterday, Senate Bill 335, otherwise known as “The Cleveland Plan,” was under the microscope again. In an intense and passionate Senate hearing, Ohio lawmakers heard various perspectives on Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson’s plan to reform Cleveland schools. More than 100 advocates, both in support of and against the plan, packed the hearing room.

After the testimony of spokespeople from various activist groups and community-based organizations, Chairwoman Peggy Lehner finally allowed Cleveland’s children to speak. Arguing in favor of Mayor Jackson’s plan to reform their schools, these students offered compelling appeals for policy changes that would ensure high-quality teachers and enable high-quality schooling options.

David Boone Jr., a graduating senior from MC2 STEM High School, a science and math magnet school, described the impact that teachers have had on his education:

“I couldn’t form a complete sentence upon entering high school. But upon graduation, I will be the first student from my school to attend Harvard, because I had teachers who cared.”

Boone then spoke about his wish for change that would provide more Cleveland students with similar opportunities for success:

“My belief is that the current approach of doing nothing [emphasis his, in written testimony] is not helping. The Mayor has a new reform plan, and I urge you to give him a chance. Allow the state to focus more on students and provide us with higher-quality opportunities. We deserve it.”

Moreover, in a pointed remark, Boone stated that teacher hiring policies should be concerned first about students:

“Let’s make some progress and end old fashioned ways of hiring and compensating teachers. . . .It’s time we find a new approach that focuses on our students.”

Senator Nina Turner stated in her response to these students’ testimony:

“We have learned a lot from the mouth of babes.”

As Senator Turner advises, we can all learn from the testimonies of students like David Boone and others (including several students from the Citizens Leadership Academy, a Cleveland charter school covered in Fordham’s report “Needles in a Haystack”.) These students would most clearly understand the pressing urgency of Mayor Jackson’s plan—it’s their futures and their peers’ futures that depend on it. And lawmakers would be remiss if they didn’t listen to their voices as they consider passage of this important piece of educational reform.