The Education Gadfly Daily

Top Ten Takeaways: Common Assessments (Part 1 of 2)

May 23, 2013

The three-part series of interviews on the nation’s move to Common Core–aligned assessments was as edifying as I could’ve hoped. USED, PARCC, and Smarter Balanced offered meaningful information on the current state of play and clear indications of what’s on the horizon.

I’ve pulled out a “Top Ten Takeaways” from the exchange. Today, we’re posting #10–#6 (they’re in rank order so #1 is most important). Tomorrow, we’ll post #5 - #1.

10. Competition with the testing industry is GAME ON!

In ways subtle and not, the responses sought to differentiate the consortia’s efforts from the testing industry.

It seemed like the Department’s interest was in drawing a line between the old and the new. Why’d they spend $330 million on new tests? Because, USED says, governors and state chiefs asked them to do so.

Why did states make that ask? “Because the market was not meeting their needs.”

According to the feds, the consortia are building “next-generation” tests that “will offer significant improvements directly responsive to the wishes of teachers and other practitioners: they will offer better assessment of critical thinking, through writing and real-world problem solving, and offer more accurate and rapid scoring.”

“We expect the consortia to develop assessment systems that are markedly better than current assessments.”

The implication is that the testing industry had come up short.

SB said its new tests would offer a “quality benefit”; SB’s transparency is “antithetical to the competitive nature of commercial test publishing”; states will now have more control over tests; and tests will have more high-quality items.

PARCC argued that “through the consortium, states are able to ensure a higher-quality assessment than any individual state could by itself.” If states drop out, they “will likely use lower quality tests to assess the CCSS.”

PARCC was also clear that the consortia had the ability make the testing industry better: “The power of states working together is going to move and improve the entire testing industry” and “The consortia assessments are our best chance to move the testing industry towards innovation and quality.”

What does PARCC think about testing companies trying to steal away its members with big promises? “The state chiefs have been hearing this sales pitch for years, and they are wise to the ways of the traditional testing industry.”

Bam!

Have no doubt: This is true-blue competition.

I’m sure the consortia believe everything they’re saying, but have no doubt, they’re also talking down their competitors.

They’ve probably had an inkling that the testing companies were quietly looking to pick off states. But yesterday’s hugely revealing Ed Week piece on ACT removed all doubt as the company declared, “We are Plan B.”

Ka-pow!

The testing companies’ capturing states would be a coup: beating out two consortia of states that were buoyed by federal money and given several years of lead-time to get their offerings right. The consortia don’t want to lose members, and they certainly don’t want to have to explain why they got $330 million of taxpayer funds if the market was going to produce something states wanted and without government money.

It seems the consortia are working overtime to maintain their respective market shares. When asked about the possibility of Florida’s and other states’ exodus, PARCC summed things up extremely well.

Yes, we think they’ll stay with us, “[b]ut we know there are no guarantees. That is why we are working hard to produce the highest-quality assessment that reflects the needs of PARCC states…Our job is to make sure that PARCC remains ‘Plan A’ for Florida and every other member state.”

Game on.

9. Technology as a major issue

Both consortia concede that while some states are ready to give online tests, some are not. Both are confident states will get there. (As a precaution, both are providing a paper-and-pencil option.)

To help the cause, SB announced that old operating systems and processors and limited memory will be sufficient to administer its assessments. With PARCC, it developed a “technology readiness tool” that allows schools and districts to track progress.

Making the infrastructure upgrades necessary and procuring the needed devices is a huge lift for states. Moreover, online tests come with their own challenges.

As states list the pros and cons of staying in the consortia, tech issues will be front and center.

8. The complexity and consequences of coordination and consensus

Both PARCC and SB discussed the difficulty associated with so many cooks in the kitchen. Completing tasks requires so many different actors across so many different states, and so many stakeholders want to play a role. In PARCC’s words, “There are thousands of state leaders, local educators and postsecondary leaders, administrators and faculty who are engaged in developing the PARCC assessment system.”

SB wrote about the challenge of “responding to the intense—and legitimate—interest of so many diverse parties in this work.” Moreover, “Keeping this diverse array of interested parties informed about the complex and often highly technical work of building an assessment system has been more challenging than we originally imagined.”

This is noteworthy because these challenges have arisen prior to the high-stakes state-level decisions just ahead. As states approach crucial go/no-go calls (budgeting for the new tests, ending contracts for existing tests), the gaps between the consortia’s decisions and each state’s preferred paths will be magnified.

In other words, a number of states might opt out partially because they didn’t get their ways on some number of issues.

7. Smarter Balanced has its act together

I follow the assessments transition closely, and even I didn’t realize how far SB had come. Perhaps they are just really good at telling their story, but I walked away from their submission convinced they are running a pretty tight ship.

They’ve hit their project milestones for delivering summative, interim, and formative assessments. The estimated cost for their full formative-interim-summative package is less than what most of their members currently pay.

This coming year, they’ll pilot 5,000 items and tasks with about a million students. This month, they plan to release a complete set of practice tests for each subject and grade level. They’ve done small trials already.

Finally, they believe all of their governing-board members are fully committed (that is, not flight risks). In a recent survey, all but one of their states indicated plans to use the full suite of tests; the other plans use only the summative assessment.

Not too shabby.

6. But what will be the quality of SB’s act?

In so many ways, Smarter Balanced gave the impression that their process has been (and therefore their final product may be) business-as-usual. Time and time again, I found myself saying, “Wow, this sounds traditional.”

Consider SB’s verbatim language:

“The process Smarter Balanced is using is very similar to the processes that states have been using for over a decade to create assessments for NCLB accountability”
“To date, our work has been supported through contracts with every one of the country’s large testing companies”
“The test-development process Smarter Balanced is using follows a sequence of steps that is familiar to all experienced assessment professionals.”

More than just using familiar processes, SB seems to have done everything possible to generate consensus among its countless stakeholders—such language is throughout their response. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with this in principle—in fact, it’s laudable—but it does raise the specter of lowest-common-denominator-itis.

Take for example, SB’s “innovative approach” to setting cut scores. Concerned that member states might not feel “adequately represented” by just participating in workshops, SB has created a crowd-sourcing mechanism so just about everyone can weigh in on what proficiency means. Will that lead to tough cut scores or widely accepted cut scores (BIG difference)?

Perhaps SB’s most revealing response along these lines is the following: “While the process that is being used to develop the Smarter Balanced assessment system would be familiar to anyone who has ever built a test, what is unique about Smarter Balanced is the bringing together of a large and diverse array of talent committed to making each element of the system ’best in breed.’”

That sounds to me like things aren’t going to be different so much as consensus based and better (though my colleague Kathleen Porter-Magee might question the “better” part).

Maybe this is the right course of action. It’ll keep people together and keep everything on pace. The product will probably be evolutionary, not revolutionary.

I guess my overall take is this: I’m certainly more confident than before that SB will successfully deliver something reputable and on-time. For that, they deserve a tip of the hat.

However, I just find it hard to make the case, based on what I read from them, that it will be “next generation.”

But I may be wrong. Time will tell.

First Bell 5-23-13

May 23, 2013

A first look at today's most important education news:

Fordham's latest

"By the Company It Keeps: Tim Daly," by Andy Smarick, Flypaper

"School funding and poverty in the suburbs," by Terry Ryan, Ohio Gadfly Daily

"Longing for the Holy Grail," by Adam Emerson, Choice Words

In the largest mass school closure in any major U.S. city, Chicago officials have officially voted to shutter forty-nine public schools this year and one next year. (Washington Post, New York Times, Huffington Post, and Chicago Tribune)

ACT Inc. has jumped into the Common-Core-assessments arena, announcing that they are an alternative to the Smarter Balanced and PARCC tests. (Curriculum Matters)

A new report finds that while two-year colleges enroll more poor and minority students, they receive lower levels of federal resources. (New York Times)

Kansas lawmakers have dropped from a state budget bill a measure that would have blocked spending on Common Core and Next Generation Science Standards. (Curriculum Matters)

The U.S. Department of Education reports that even as more Americans than ever are earning bachelor’s degrees, the nation’s international lead is slipping. (Hechinger Report)

A new report finds that schools are flooded with data that they don’t know how to use, and it calls on lawmakers to develop long-term plans to make sure that tech systems are in sync. (Digital Education)

Under a new program, roughly 250 math and science teachers in New York will be eligible for bonus pay in exchange for mentoring new teachers. (Teacher Beat)

No longer a boy’s world: Boys and special education

May 22, 2013

Wayward Sons, a recent report published by the policy think tank the Third Way, finds that the average girl’s educational and career outcomes have improved over time, while boys tend to be faring worse. This widening “gender gap,” the report contends, suggests “reason for concern” and “bodes ill for the well-being of recent cohorts of U.S. males.”

Explaining why boys are struggling now more than in past decades is, of course, extremely complex. One line of inquiry might consider the changing schooling experiences of boys and girls: Could it be that boys are becoming increasingly harder to educate? Might schools tailor education in ways unsuitable for boys’ needs? Or is it a mix of both?

Fair questions—and using Ohio’s special education data, I look at whether there’s any evidence that (a) boys might be harder to educate than girls and (b) whether schools might respond to difficult-to-educate boys by referring them into special education.

The Ohio data is nothing short of remarkable: There are considerably more boys identified as disabled than girls. (The referral and identification process is a joint effort between the parent and the school.) Statewide, 166,690 boys (65 percent) and 88,539 girls (35 percent) were identified as disabled in 2011-12. This compares to a 51 percent male to 49 percent female ratio for all K-12 students—disabled and non-disabled together.

A similarly disproportionate number of boys populate the specific disabled categories. In fact, every single category except one (deaf-blindness) has more boys than girls.[1] The bullets below, and as displayed in chart 1, present the male-female percentages for the state’s top five special education categories, by student enrollment in 2011-12:

Specific learning disabilities: 64,130 boys (61 percent of this group) and 41,133 girls (39 percent);
Other health impaired – minor: 23,923 boys (70 percent) and 10,152 girls (30 percent);
Speech and language impairments: 21,361 boys (67 percent) and 10,340 girls (33 percent);
Cognitive Disabilities (mental retardation): 14,887 boys (58 percent) and 10,852 girls (42 percent);
Autism: 13,816 boys (85 percent) and 2,485 girls (15 percent).

Chart 1: Proportionally more boys than girls identified as disabled - by largest special education categories, 2011-12

SOURCE: Ohio Department of Education, Data Warehouse Reports

That there are more boys than girls who are identified as disabled is not a one-year phenomenon as chart 2 indicates. We see that the percentage of male special education students has remained steady, slightly above 65 percent since 2003. Interestingly, however, the percentage of males in the specific learning disability (SLD) category has declined from 69 percent in 2002-03 to 61 percent in 2011-12. Meanwhile, the proportion of males has risen incrementally in the other two disabled categories displayed. (Only the three largest categories by 2011-12 student enrollment are displayed.)

Chart 2: More boys than girls identified as disabled – overall disabled and select categories, 2002-03 to 2011-12

SOURCE: Ohio Department of Education, Data Warehouse Reports

Whether it’s the “boy or the school” that accounts for the disproportionate identification of boys as disabled can’t, of course, be answered definitively with these data. It could be that schools are quick to relocate hyperactive or slow-learning boys into special education. (Naturally, categories such as deaf-blindness or autism wouldn’t be valid under this explanation. But the Other Health Impairments-Minor, somewhat of a catchall category for unruly kids, could be.) Yet, it could also be that learning-disabled boys are wired in such a way that special education is an entirely justifiable action taken by a school and parent.

In the end, the dismal findings about boys in Wayward Sons, together with special education data that indicate that too many boys have difficulty in today’s classrooms—and that disabled identification is an oft-used solution—should prompt rethinking about how schools educate boys. Is special education the only—and best—solution for behaviorally- or learning-challenged boys? Could schools better meet boys’ needs through single-gender schools or classrooms? Could schools ratchet up efforts to recruit and retain male teachers? (Ohio’s teacher force is 75 percent female.) Should schools carve out more recess or physical education time for boys? What about establishing more vocationally focused high schools? Any or all of these practices might just put boys on a better educational and vocational trajectory than our current system has.

[1] Ohio schools can classifies special education students into fourteen categories. For the definition of each disability, see EdResourcesOhio.org’s online glossary.

By the Company It Keeps: Tim Daly

May 22, 2013

Our first guest on By the Company It Keeps is Tim Daly, President of TNTP. I’m a huge fan of Tim and his organization. In addition to being a highly talented and endlessly affable guy, he’s helped lead TNTP into rarified air. It is as influential on policy and practice as any education-reform organization around.

Tim was a guiding force behind the seminal publication The Widget Effect and played a major role in the production of other top-flight TNTP reports like The Irreplaceables and Leap Year.

Earlier in his career he was a TFA corps member (having taught in Baltimore) and helped establish and expand the New York City Teaching Fellows program. With TNTP CEO Ariela Rozman (another total star), he received the 2012 Harold W. McGraw, Jr. Prize in Education.

If future interviews turn out half as well as Tim’s, I’ll be thrilled. We learn a great deal, and the subject’s smarts, curiosity, and humility shine through. He even enlightens us about Garry Wills and Stan Musial.

As a matter of fact, the totality is so good that I’m willing to look past his grievous error about Sandy Koufax (he only had 165 career wins!).

Ladies and gentlemen, Tim Daly.

1. How would you summarize the key findings of Leap Year, TNTP’s latest report?

It’s sort of a combination of a study and a tell-all. The basic finding is that the first year is not a warm up lap—it’s a very strong signal of how a teacher will perform in the future. If we use multiple tools to follow a teacher’s early progress, we have a good idea of whether that person should continue in the profession. Other studies have shown this by looking at large populations of teachers, but we demonstrated it in the real world by launching programmatic shifts in more than a dozen cities.

It’s also the story of our quest to do a better job of bringing excellent teachers to schools that desperately need them. We have a mission. If we aren’t doing the things that will achieve it, we need to change. But how? We thought we’d share our approach.

2. One interesting lesson is that we should probably invest in more observers, not more observations. Can you say more about that?

This is a finding that echoes the Gates MET research. When you send the same person each time to see a teacher, you don’t maximize reliability because whatever tendencies the observer has are consistently projected onto the teacher. In some ways you are learning more and more about the observer, not the teacher. We also see in many cases that the same observer rates the teacher higher and higher with each visit, while you don’t see that with varied observers. The most useful observational portrait is a combination of multiple visits AND multiple visitors.

3. In recent years, thanks to the MET Project, TNTP’s The Widget Effect, and other research, we’ve learned a great deal about educator effectiveness. Thanks to Leap Year, we’re wiser about the first year of teaching. Taking all of this into account, what does the ideal state teacher-certification system look like?

This is a policy issue where our instincts and the evidence can point in opposite directions. We all want to hold a high bar for entry into teaching. It’s a reasonable assumption that asking candidates to jump through all sorts of hoops before becoming teachers is going to improve quality. But the evidence just doesn’t support it. A lot of the candidates who jump through the hoops don’t become good teachers and some of the candidates who come through streamlined avenues do very well. It leads us to conclude that up-front certification should be lightweight and simple—designed to exclude only those who don’t even deserve a tryout in teaching. On the other hand, ongoing re-certification should be much more rigorous, as we should expect that many teachers will fail to meet our standards on the job and should not become career educators.

4. Why do you think some of the nation’s “new-and-improved” teacher-evaluation systems continue to rate the vast majority of teachers as effective or better? Given all of the time, money, and energy spent on evaluation reform, should we be concerned that meaningful differentiation is still elusive?

Yes, we should be concerned, but not surprised. We argued in The Widget Effect that the problem wasn’t just the evaluation systems, it was a culture that refused to see the differences in instructional skill that were right before our eyes. The new systems provide a better support structure to assess and develop instruction, and they usually remove prohibitions against consideration of student learning. But they do not by themselves change culture. All of us, as educators, are responsible for that culture. We must take ownership of the systems and use them as they were intended to be used.

5. What current TNTP projects are you most excited about? Are there any particular state or district engagements that seem especially promising?

As a follow up to The Irreplaceables, we’ve done a survey of elite teachers nationally – mostly folks who’ve won prestigious awards—to learn more about their experiences and perspectives on policy issues. We’ll publish the results later this year, but one thing that stands out clearly is that when we talk about what “teachers” think, we’re probably oversimplifying because they have such diverse views about so many issues. I’ve lost track of how many findings surprised me.

Also, we’re about to name the second group of Fishman Prize winners. This is one of my absolute favorite things we do at TNTP. It’s a $25,000 prize for teachers in Title I public schools that’s named for Shira Fishman, a high school math teacher in DC. The winners spend the summer working with us and writing about their classroom practice.

6. My sources tell me that you are an inveterate number cruncher—that, all things being equal, you’d prefer to be analyzing data. Have those hours taught you any overarching lessons about research, advocacy, or policy? Any particularly memorable “a-ha!” from one of these long, solitary journeys through a spreadsheet?

I plead guilty. I like to review evidence myself because I can ask all the questions I want without bothering someone else…and I usually have an annoying number of questions. I would say the number one thing I’ve learned is not to believe things you hear—not without checking. People repeat things at conferences that they believe to be true, but often they misheard someone else say it or they are slightly (and often unintentionally) exaggerating it. Or they are presenting anecdotes as data. When you dig, you find that far fewer things are “true,” meaning they hold up to scrutiny, but they are more interesting and challenging than things tossed around as conventional wisdom.

A good example is the idea that new teachers struggle, but with time they get better. That seems entirely reasonable because it’s consistent with what we observe in our own experiences and with research, which says second year teachers are better than first year teachers. But when you look at the data in detail, it’s more complex than that. This was one of my “A-ha!” moments, as you call them.

I was looking at trend data on a group of new teachers and I realized that some of them stagnated very early in their careers or even declined temporarily. Because they didn’t master basic skills, they adopted bad habits to get by that caused them to fall so far behind their peers that they couldn’t catch up, even a year or two later. So yes, new teachers get better, but you can’t just assume it will happen, or that they will all get better. I still remember staring at my computer screen, trying to make sense of what I was seeing.

7. More under-rated hitter: Jimmie Foxx or Stan Musial? Better left-handed pitcher: Warren Spahn or Sandy Koufax?

Stan Musial. I am fatally biased because I’m a Cardinals fan but Musial is one of the most accomplished, consistent, and balanced hitters in baseball history. Just for a start, he had over 3,600 hits—that’s a staggering number, Tony Gwynn didn’t even have 3,200—and he had the same number at home and on the road. But he also hit almost 500 home runs. Pete Rose may have had more hits but he had only 160 home runs.

For pitchers, I’m going to say Koufax but it’s apples and oranges. Spahn is so much more accomplished over his career but Koufax was as untouchable for a period of time as anyone has ever been. That stretch of domination is fascinating to me—especially since he was magical right to the day of his retirement.

8. In my experience most number crunchers are simply very curious people. If you look back on your intellectual development, what big ideas, books, or thinkers (whether education reform–related or not) influenced you the most?

I took a couple of classes with Garry Wills, a historian, when I was an undergraduate and he had a huge influence on me. He has such a knack for laying out deep arguments simply and supporting them with evidence that is more far reaching and comprehensive than anyone else. He’s written authoritatively on everything from performances of Macbeth to the Gettysburg Address to the Catholic Church. His background was as a classicist. In his books he often goes back to original Greek or Latin sources and translates them for himself when he is writing about them. I’ve never forgotten that commitment to inspecting each fragment. And on top of that, he taught me to appreciate Martin Scorsese films.

9. If I had TNTP’s senior staff and board in a room, I’d try to convince you that no matter how smart or effective your team, you’ll never be able to make the urban district succeed. I’d tell you to reallocate your resources to expanding great schools and helping create great new schools in the charter sector and developing policies and support organizations for this new system of schools. After you had me escorted from the building, what would you say to your colleagues?

This is a worthy debate to have. After decades of trying, how many large urban districts can say they systematically expand opportunities for the families they serve? The alternative is to focus on expanding the number of seats in good schools. Except I don’t think these things are mutually exclusive. On our good days, we help districts see that they can think just as aggressively about creating conditions to grow excellent schools as the charter sector. They can empower leaders to assemble cohesive teams and establish college as a core expectation for students. There are districts out there trying to think boldly, and if they succeed, they can create conditions for a lot of good schools to thrive at once. My view is that just as charters are competing with and reacting to districts, districts can compete with and react to the charter sector. They have a role to play.

10. Your brother is an assistant coach with the NFL’s Minnesota Vikings, meaning he gets to have football conversations with future Hall-of-Famers Adrian Peterson and Jared Allen. You, on the other hand, are forced to have conversations about spreadsheets with me. Ever feel like the universe is really, really unfair?

He’s my older brother and I look up to him in a million ways…but never more so than on a Sunday afternoon when he has a ground-level view of Adrian Peterson breaking away on a long run. However, each of us has a place in the universe, and apparently mine is among the spreadsheets.

A testimony on the Common Core standards

May 22, 2013

The following is the text of Kathleen Porter-Magee's testimony to the Wisconsin State Legislature's Committee on Education, delivered on May 22, 2013.

My name is Kathleen Porter-Magee; I’m a senior director and Bernard Lee Schwartz policy fellow at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a right-leaning education-policy think tank in Washington, D.C., that also leads ground-level work in the great state of Ohio. We support a variety of education reforms, with a particular focus on school choice and standards- and accountability-driven reform. In addition to my own policy work, I’ve spent several years working to implement rigorous standards in urban Catholic and public charter school classrooms. Fordham’s president, Chester Finn, served in the Reagan Administration, and its executive vice president, Mike Petrilli, served under George W. Bush. Both are also affiliated with the Hoover Institution in California.

I’m honored to be with you here today, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to talk to you about what I believe is one of the most important education initiatives of the past decade: the development and adoption of the Common Core State Standards.

I hope to help explain why the Common Core holds such promise, to demystify what the standards are all about, and to debunk some of the most common myths and misconceptions.

For nearly two decades, state standards have been a cornerstone of our modern education system. State governments have long set minimum expectations for each grade level or grade band across all grades, K through 12. These are meant to ensure that all students, regardless of race or socioeconomic status are held to the same rigorous standards. And there is ample evidence that, without clear objectives, teachers will—often unconsciously—raise or lower their own expectations based on the abilities and background of the students in front of them, rather than based on what will help ensure students are on path towards college or the workforce.

Yet, we have known for a long time that, in far too many states, including Wisconsin, the existing state standards set the bar far too low, leaving a content and expectations gap between schools and classrooms.

But are the Common Core the right solution to this problem? In order to answer that question, it’s important to understand five facts:

1.   The Common Core effort is and has always been a state-led effort to improve the quality and rigor of K–12 academic standards, of which Wisconsin leaders have been full participants.
2.   The Common Core State Standards are significantly stronger than the Wisconsin standards they replaced.
3.   Common Core English language arts standards emphasize the importance of reading rigorous, high-quality literature in English class, plus nonfiction in history, science, and other courses.
4.   The Common Core math standards prioritize the most important math content at each grade level, including a heavy dose of “math facts” and arithmetic in the early grades.
5.   By adopting the Common Core, Wisconsin benefits from much stronger standards while retaining full control over curriculum, instruction, and pedagogy where it belongs—at the local level.

Let’s dive deeper into rigor of the standards. If I leave you with nothing else, I hope I will be successful in underlining this critical point: The Common Core are significantly clearer and more rigorous than the Wisconsin English language arts and math standards they replaced. In fact, the gains made by replacing the Wisconsin standards with the Common Core are some of the largest in the nation.

We at the Fordham Institute have been evaluating state standards for more than fifteen years. In 2010, we released a comprehensive review of the clarity, specificity, content, and rigor of every state’s existing ELA and math standards, along with our evaluation of the final draft of the Common Core. In that analysis, the Common Core earned a B-plus from our ELA experts and an A-minus from our math experts. In the same evaluation, Wisconsin’s English language arts and math standards earned a D and an F, respectively. By choosing to adopt the Common Core, Wisconsin has dramatically boosted the quality, clarity, and rigor of its expectations in these two critical areas.

When judged against international standards for ELA and math, the Common Core fares equally well. Between 2009 and 2010, we reviewed the quality of the standards that provide the foundation for several national and international assessments: the NAEP, the PISA, TIMSS (for math), and PIRLS (for ELA). In math, the Common Core scored as well as the TIMSS, and better than both the PISA and the NAEP. In ELA, the Common Core outperformed all three: the NAEP, PISA, and PIRLS.

What’s more, research by William Schmidt, a leading expert on international mathematics performance and a previous director of the U.S. TIMSS study, has compared the Common Core to high-performing countries in grades K–8. The agreement was very high between the Common Core math standards and the math standards in place in the highest performing nations. In fact, Schmidt and his colleague found that no state's previous math standards were as close a match to those of high performing countries as the Common Core (not California’s, not Indiana’s, not Massachusetts’s).

Perhaps even more critically, Schmidt’s research found that “states whose previous standards were most similar to the Common Core performed better on a national math test in 2009.”[1] That means that, across the nation and the world, students whose learning was driven by standards that closely resembled the Common Core fared better than students who lived in states whose standards looked very different.

In spite of the evidence of rigor of the Common Core, a small but vocal set of critics have spent the past year in Wisconsin and around the country spreading countless myths about what the standards ask, who is behind them, and what they mean for our teachers and students.

For the purposes of today’s conversation, let me address four of the most prominent critiques to demonstrate how these attacks don’t hold up under scrutiny.

First, many critics mistakenly believe that the Common Core inappropriately prioritize nonfiction over literature in language arts classrooms.

This is based on a misreading—or deliberate manipulation—of a two-paragraph section found on page 5 of the introduction to the CCSS that mentions the NAEP assessment framework, and suggests that teachers across content areas should “follow NAEP’s lead in balancing the reading of literature with the reading of informational texts, including texts in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects.” Following NAEP’s lead would mean that fourth, eighth, and twelfth graders would spend 50, 55, and 70 percent of their time (respectively) reading informational text.

Some critics have led people to believe that these percentages are meant to direct learning exclusively in literature classrooms. They are not. In fact, the Common Core immediately clarifies that “the percentages…reflect the sum of student reading, not just reading in ELA settings. Teachers of senior English classes, for example, are not required to devote 70 percent of reading to informational texts.”

What’s more, the Common Core devote a disproportionately large amount of attention on demonstrating the quality, complexity, and rigor of the texts students should be reading each year. Appendix A includes a list of “exemplar” texts, the vast majority of which are works written by literary giants like Throeau, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Harper Lee, and Nathaniel Hawthorne. The small number of technical documents included in these lists are dwarfed by the volume of great authors and works of literature and literary nonfiction that the Common Core holds up as exemplary.

Second, many critics complain that the Common Core standards promote low-level mathematical skills, or that they prioritize mathematical “practices” or “fuzzy math” over critical content. Again, a close reading of the standards reveals the opposite is true.

The Common Core math standards prioritize essential content—and allow the time and space needed for deep mastery of that content. In the early grades, this means that arithmetic is heavily weighted, that students are asked to learn to automaticity their basic math facts, and that they are asked to master the standard algorithms. This is content they need to know—cold—in order to be prepared for the upper level math work they will do in high school and beyond. If there is one thing we know with certainty, it’s that math is cumulative. You can only move on to more advanced content when you have fully mastered essential prerequisite knowledge and skills.

Some critics complain that the Common Core don’t require Algebra in the eighth grade, something that many think is essential to prepare students for advanced math in high school. The reality, however, is that the Kindergarten through seventh grade Common Core standards include all of the prerequisite content students will need to have learned to be prepared for Algebra I in the eighth grade. And that means that it’s the states, districts, and/or schools who decide for themselves course and graduation requirements.

Third, despite some heated rhetoric to the contrary, the Common Core was at its founding and remains today a state-led effort. The Obama administration has certainly tried to claim credit, but the truth is the work on Common Core started before Barack Obama was sworn in as president. And while his administration did try to incentivize adoption of more rigorous state standards like Common Core through the Race to the Top competition, no other federal money is tied to Common Core adoption. The states who have opted not to adopt the Common Core—Texas, Virginia, Alaska, and Nebraska—receive exactly the amount of federal aid they would have received had they adopted the Common Core. Even more critically: any state that opts out of the Common Core today or in the future will not lose any future federal education funding.

Some claim that the Obama administration tied Common Core adoption to its ESEA waiver process. Yet, Virginia won a waiver without ever adopting the Common Core, proving that the two were not inextricably linked.

Similarly, there is no single national assessment being forced on states. There are two federally funded assessment consortia, but states have no obligation to join either, as was evident when Alabama and Utah backed out of both. In fact, private assessment developers continue to compete for state assessment contracts. Pearson has developed an assessment in New York that the state may choose to stick with even when the consortia assessments are ready. The ACT is in the process of developing its own version as well. Others will no doubt join them, and the federally funded consortia will be a helpful comparison—much like the NAEP is now—but will not lead to a sole “national” test for all American schoolchildren.

Finally, some argue that adoption of the Common Core—or any K–12 academic standards—will usurp local control over curriculum and instruction. On the contrary, by setting standards, rather than adopting statewide curricula, state education leaders are ensuring that local district, school, and teacher leaders remain in control of the decisions that most directly impact the students they serve. On the ELA side, this means that local leaders and teachers can and will choose the texts students will read. On the math side, it means that schools can decide whether to fast-track students to Algebra I, and so on. Standards set a minimum bar—a floor, not a ceiling. They are designed only to help define student outcomes to help ensure that all students have the opportunity to learn the content they need to succeed. But educators still drive curriculum and instruction. Leaders still make critical, school-level decisions. In short, by setting standards, states can help preserve local autonomy, rather than taking it away.

The decision to adopt the Common Core in Wisconsin has set this great state on the right path. Whether this decision leads to improved outcomes depends entirely on your commitment to getting this right for Wisconsin’s schoolchildren.

[1] For a fuller description of the findings, see here: http://edwp.educ.msu.edu/news/2012/study-supports-move-toward-common-math-standards/#sthash.qqbNrGdb.dpuf.

Longing for the Holy Grail

May 22, 2013

Over on the Ohio Gadfly Daily, Fordham’s Jeff Murray has a meditation on what it’s like to lose the school-choice lottery. And it vividly reminds us that despite a flourishing school-choice movement, many families still struggle to access the one school they want for their children—even a public school.

Jeff and his wife have been reaching into their “middle-income pockets” to send their daughters to a “middle-of-the-road” private school because their public school options have been substandard. Until recently. An impressive STEM high school planned to expand to middle grades, and it was just what the Murray family wanted.

So it was for hundreds of others. And so a lottery would pick the lucky few from the many who longed for what Jeff called the Holy Grail, the best possible educational foundation for their kids. “We know we’d found it,” he writes. “And we can’t get in.”

Jeff has left us a lot to ponder, and not just because he has left us a powerful, personal reflection. What happens, he asks, when you don’t have the means or the knowledge of the system? What happens when all your choices are bad?

What happens, indeed?

School funding and poverty in the suburbs

May 22, 2013

When Ohio Governor John Kasich released his “Achievement Everywhere” school funding plan in late February it was widely criticized for “stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.” Opponents of the governor’s plan noted “rich” suburban districts would see more state funding than poorer rural and urban districts. People wondered why the Cleveland Metropolitan School District, with a long history of poverty, would see no increase in state funding while Cleveland suburban districts like Euclid City would see a 21 percent increase in funding.

It didn’t seem to make sense, despite the arguments of the governor’s staff that Ohio’s demographics had changed considerably over the last decade (consider Cleveland had lost 30,000 students), and poverty was far more widely dispersed than most people thought. In response to the cries that the governor’s plan was unfair to rural and urban districts while a money grab for suburban districts the House rewrote the Kasich school funding plan to fund both rural and urban schools at higher amounts. This, it was argued, would be a fairer funding formula than what the Governor proposed and spreadsheets of the House plan did indeed show more rural and urban district benefiting from their plan than the governor's.

It is yet to be seen what the Senate is going to do per school funding, but one hopes that Senators are reading the new book from the Brookings Institution that reports “the suburban poverty rate in America has climbed by 64 percent over the past decade, more than twice as fast as the poverty rate in urban areas.”

The Brookings report confirms what supporters of Governor Kasich’s plan have been arguing since its release in February. Ohio’s demographics are changing and Ohio’s school funding formula needs to evolve to meet these new realities. Kasich’s plan tries to attach school funding to the actual needs of students, as opposed to attaching money to traditional perceptions about school districts and their poverty. Ohio should follow Governor Kasich’s lead and finally break away from thinking of school funding through the lenses of district “equity” and “adequacy;” between “rich” and “poor” districts. Poverty and needy students increasingly live in the suburbs and money for their education should follow them to their schools.

Losing the school choice lottery and what it means for one family

May 21, 2013

Yesterday, I spent all day hitting the Refresh button on my email account. Probably 653 times. Why? Because the one school that we wanted for our children for next year was to announce its lottery results to those lucky few who would be chosen. 12 or 13 slots for sixth grade, out of an application pool of several hundred (wish I knew exactly how many).

On click number 653 we got the news at last: Our numbers didn’t hit.

***

My parents practiced school choice the old-fashioned way in the late 1970’s – they moved from the east side of Columbus to the boonies. This was their only option. With a one-income family and four children, private school was not in the cards. My father drove 30 miles one way to work (even farther later in his career) with no complaints.

Why not stay in Columbus City Schools? Desegregation. I’m not proud of this fact and the mindset that it evokes, but they were not the only ones in our neighborhood – let alone the city – who did not want their children bussed across town for a school they felt inferior to the one they had. In fact, we had five other family/friends move from our street alone into the same tiny burg in the country the same summer. Did we miss out on some opportunities moving from a big city district to the country? You bet. But all of us did OK in our new environment and our lives and careers are still on track nearly 40 years later.

Fast forward to 2013: my family and I live in the city of Columbus in an old house on a quiet street near everything we love – libraries, parks (river, bikepath, etc.), stores, activities, and even the road out of town for when wandering sounds good. Our commute to work is 15 minutes on a bad day.

This neighborhood has been the same for a very long time, but much has changed around it and much within the mindset of its residents, especially in terms of education that is on the minds of the many young families who choose to live here. And it is a choice that they make for the most part. Incomes here are all over the board and can usually be determined by where you live in relation to the major crossroads. To say you live in this part of town conveys nothing but a relative geography until folks probe deeper and then they figure out more about you by whether you live northwest or southeast of High and Broadway. And so you can choose to be in the same area whether you have a middling amount of money or a large amount of money. House, apartment, duplex, condo – we have it. This is a place you go when you have some means (either a little or a lot).

What we don’t have is a district school that I want to send my daughters to. This is no different than my parents felt – for a very different reason – but the landscape of choice has changed. In fact, that landscape includes an opt-in to the Columbus district, which many vocal parents are choosing and advocating for among their friends and acquaintances. They reason that if more motivated parents choose to be here, the neighborhood school and all its students will benefit. And, honestly, if there is a good Columbus elementary school to be had (i.e. – rigorous, focused on student success, geared toward the future, and not sparing with high-value homework) it’s probably here. In fact, our area is one of the few with no voucher-eligible schools in Columbus. But we investigated and found it academically wanting and so it was out. NOTE: I am not the first Fordham father to talk about this. Check out Mike Petrilli’s excellent book for his much more detailed story.

So was the district lottery, despite the fact that many families we knew sent their children (often multiple children) to the alternative school several blocks away. If you can get in. But it too seemed to be less than an ideal fit for our girls and the lottery process was reported to be Byzantine and often fruitless, although it still lurks in the back of our minds.

No charter schools in our neighborhood, so we would be forced to bus them or drive them a long way to reach one of the few good charter elementaries. So that was not practical either.

And as we have always done, we were looking at the big picture – middle school, high school, college readiness. Even if we had been tireless advocates for our children in the neighborhood public elementary (pushing for more rigor, nagging for more attention from teachers, and supplementing the classroom work with outside opportunities), there was nothing available to us in the district even remotely worthwhile to us after fifth grade.

And since neither of us have the skill to homeschool, we have gone the private school route. That has been our reality since the girls were three years old – private daycare, private preschool, private Montessori school, and now a private K-8 school, with summer camps each year from various private sources. Out of our own middle-income pockets. Not the elite Academies or all-girls schools you might have heard of, but a white-bread (in all senses of the term, unfortunately) middle-of-the-road institution that really would rather be doing Mass than math. But they soldier on with academics, pleased to adopt and align to the Common Core early but lax on homework, indifferent to long-term project-based learning, and weak in areas where there's no such thing as a common core standard.

The girls have done great – worked hard, learned the value of a good education, and produced at or above our expectations regularly. And they even know how to have fun when the work is finished. They are fantastic and on the right path, sometimes despite the teachers in the schools they’ve attended.

So, what was yesterday about? Those 653 clicks?

The holy grail.

***

We have had our eye on the local STEM school for high school (talk about the long game) for the last couple of years, only to have them announce that they are expanding to middle school just in time for our kids to start sixth grade. Wow. But maybe it’s not as good as we thought it was.

Open house. Amazing. Even better than we imagined.

Application. Easy and interesting. I didn’t realize my eleven-year-olds had already figured out their five-year visions.

The waiting. Hard, but not too long.

Word on the street: everyone we know is applying. Probably lots of folks we don’t know.

Uh oh.

Yesterday? Depression.

***

Our only Plan B is to return to our middle-of-the-road private school, downtrodden and with even lower expectations than before. (You know how it is: as soon as you decide that you want to trade in your old car, you suddenly see its flaws even more starkly.) We can apply to the STEM school – the only one of its kind for 20 miles – again next year for seventh grade. And again the following year for eighth grade. And again the following year for ninth grade, as we had originally planned.

We figured we had the school choice thing in Columbus locked up: we lived where we wanted, paid for the best school we could afford, and then supplemented to the best of our ability. We didn’t even begrudge our property taxes continuing to go to Columbus City Schools. The American way, right?

Our kids are our priority and we know where we want them to go: to college and beyond. They can be anything they want with the right foundation, and it’s our job to give them the best foundation possible. That’s why yesterday’s lottery loss stings so much. We know we’d found it. And we can’t get in.

What happens when you don’t have means, when you don’t have knowledge of the system, when you have other priorities weighing on your family, when all of your “choices” are bad?

First Bell 5-21-13

May 21, 2013

A first look at today's most important education news:

Fordham's latest

"Why private schools are dying out," by Chester E. Finn, Jr., Flypaper

"Video of "Always Reformed, Always Reforming" event now available," by Kevin Pack, Ohio Gadfly Daily

On Monday, Education Secretary Arne Duncan announced that three more states—Alaska, Hawaii, and West Virginia—will be granted NCLB waivers, bringing the total to thirty-seven. (Politics K–12 and Associated Press)

Chiefs for Change, a group of state education leaders, are pushing back against calls for a moratorium on the use of standardized tests in student or teacher evaluations. (Curriculum Matters, Washington Post, and Education Gadfly Show Podcast)

Khan Academy—with a little help from a $2.2 million Helmsley grant—plans to develop online, Common Core–aligned mathematics tools for teachers and students. (Curriculum Matters)

The D.C. charter board has approved two new schools and rejected seven more. (Washington Post)

Today, most New York residents will vote on their school districts’ budgets. (Wall Street Journal)

With the successes of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, and David Karp on the mind, the Wall Street Journal wonders: When is it okay for a high flyer to drop out of school?

Common Core–aligned tests are in the works for students with severe disabilities. (Education Week)

Video of "Always Reformed, Always Reforming" event now available

May 21, 2013

Last week, Fordham’s Ohio team gathered with school leaders and ed reform stakeholders - including legislators and members of the State Board of Education - to discuss the findings of our latest report, Half Empty or Half Full? Superintendents’ Views on Ohio’s Education Reforms.

While we provided a recap of the event Friday, I’m happy to share a full-length video of the event! If you missed it, or attended and would like to view or share with others, check out the video here.

We feel the survey and its findings provide an important window into how the reforms we champion play out on the ground in districts across Ohio. The insights of our panelists and audience members are interesting and enlightening. Watch the video and tell us what you think.

Share your comments about the survey and event below. We look forward to seeing you at future Fordham events!

Why private schools are dying out

May 20, 2013

Private education as we have known it is on its way out, at both the K–12 and postsecondary levels. At the very least, it's headed for dramatic shrinkage, save for a handful of places and circumstances, to be replaced by a very different set of institutional, governance, financing, and education-delivery mechanisms.

Private education as we have known it is on its way out.
Photo by Jim Young/Reuters

Consider today's realities. Private K–12 enrollments are shrinking—by almost 13 percent from 2000 to 2010. Catholic schools are closing right and left. The Archdiocese of Philadelphia, for example, announced in January that forty-four of its 156 elementary schools will cease operations next month. (A few later won reprieves.) In addition, many independent schools (day schools and especially boarding schools) are having trouble filling their seats—at least, filling them with their customary clientele of tuition-paying American students. Traditional nonprofit private colleges are also challenged to fill their classroom seats and dorms, a situation to which they're responding by heavily discounting their tuitions and fees for more and more students.

Meanwhile, charter school enrollments are booming across the land. The charter share of the primary-secondary population is 5 percent nationally and north of 25 percent in two dozen major cities. "Massive open online courses" (MOOCs) are booming, too, and online degree and certificate options proliferating. Public-sector college and university enrollments remain strong and now educate three students out of four. The "proprietary" (i.e., for-profit) sector of postsecondary education is doing okay, despite its tortured relationship with federal financial aid.

What's really happening here are big structural changes across the industry as the traditional model of private education—at both levels—becomes unaffordable, unnecessary, or both, and as more viable options for students and families present themselves. While unemployment remains high, the marginal advantage of investing thirty or fifty thousand dollars a year in private schooling is diminishing, particularly when those dollars are invested in low-selectivity, lower-status institutions. Recent analyses by AIR's Mark Schneider and Brookings's Stephanie Owen and Isabel Sawhill make it explicit:

People who attended the most selective private schools [colleges/universities] have a lifetime earnings premium of over $620,000....For those who attended a minimally selective or open-admission private school, the premium is only a third of that....[P]ublic schools tend to have higher ROIs than private schools, and more selective schools offer higher returns than less selective ones.

Alterations in the housing market may also play a role where K–12 private schools are concerned. Not long ago, one could live in a nice house in the city for a lot less than a nice house in the suburbs—and spend the money saved on private schooling for one's kids. In gentrifying cities, however, that's no longer so. Now one must pay more for a house in the city plus private school for the children. Thus, more parents are saying, "Forget it, I'll go public—provided the public sector can be made to supply me with a good charter or magnet school, or a virtual-education supplement to a decent neighborhood school."

Three factors keep all these changes from being more visible and talked about.

First, of course, they're gradual, and thus (proverbially) difficult to perceive. Second, it's not in the interest of private schools or colleges to acknowledge that they have a problem—lest it create the educational equivalent of a run on the bank, with clients fleeing for fear of being abandoned after a sudden collapse. Much of the allure of private schools, after all, is based on their reputations, which they work hard to sustain. Hence they maintain a brave front while quietly shrinking, discounting—and recruiting full-pay students from wealthy families in other lands, particularly in Asia.

Most other modern countries have essentially melded their private education sectors into their systems of public financing

Third, elite private institutions are doing just fine, many besieged by more applicants than ever before. The wealthiest Americans can easily afford them and are ever more determined to secure for their children the advantages that come with attending them. And at the K–12 level, a disproportionate fraction of those wealthy people live in major cities where the public school options are unappealing. So we're not going to see an enrollment crisis anytime soon at Brown, Amherst, or Duke, nor at Andover, Sidwell Friends, or Trinity. Indeed, New York's new Avenues School, serving preschoolers through twelfth graders, is able to fill its classes with families willing and able to pay its staggering $43,000 per annum.

Because these elite schools and colleges are also highly visible—and where the "chattering classes" want (and can afford) to enroll their own daughters and sons—they create a façade of private-sector vitality. Behind it, however, like the Wizard of Oz's curtain and Potemkin's building façades, there is much weakness, a weakness that probably afflicts the vast majority of today's private schools and colleges.

Is this situation reversible? And should it be a matter of concern for education reformers and policymakers?

Most other modern countries have essentially melded their private education sectors into their systems of public financing—and have accepted the tradeoffs that accompany such financing, namely government regulation of curriculum, teacher credentialing, student admissions, and more. We can see early examples of this in the U.S., too, as vouchers gradually spread and private schools accommodate themselves to the state testing regimes and other rules that come with such financing.

This is apt to be a limited remedy, however, due to American church-state entanglement anxieties that other countries don't share; prohibitions in many state constitutions that make such public financing difficult or impossible; and our conviction that what's valuable about private education is its freedom to be different. The policy dilemma is whether different-ness is precious enough, if with it comes gradual erosion of the "different" sector itself.

Can run-of-the-mill private schools and colleges reboot? I wouldn't bet a year's tuition on it.

One can also fairly ask whether U.S. private schools and colleges are really all that different from their public-sector counterparts. In practice, their education-delivery model is practically indistinguishable, save for the accoutrements that the wealthiest of them can buy (trips to faraway lands, nifty technology, tiny classes, etc.). There is, however, a difference where religion is concerned: Just 22.8 percent of K–12 private school students are in secular schools, while about 32 percent of all private college students are enrolled in religiously affiliated institutions. In less prosperous schools and colleges, religion may, at day's end, be the only real difference between public and private—and the return on that investment, while perhaps significant, cannot be easily measured.

Changing the delivery system might serve to make private education both more affordable and more different, and signs of such change are already evident, but rarely in the traditional nonprofit portions of the private sector. Instead, the boldest innovations are coming from entrepreneurs, most of them profit-seeking and most of them delivering instruction (and more) via technology rather than face-to-face in brick buildings that are open just six or eight hours a day for 180 or so days a year.

Elite universities—the ones that are still thriving and would continue to thrive even without these changes—are also, themselves, innovating—but mostly for students other than their own. The MITs and Stanfords are teaming up with the Courseras and Udacitys—educational-technology companies specializing in online education—to offer online courses to thousands. Udacity has dipped a toe into the K–12 waters, both by partnering with local school systems and by inviting students to enroll directly in its college-level courses. Nor is it likely to stop there. Indeed, I expect "St. Paul's math" and "Dalton's literature" in time to echo across the land, too. If current trends continue, we're going to see a bi-modal system develop, with public schools (including charter schools) and ultra-elite private schools monopolizing the education space as the plethora of smaller private and parochial schools that once fell between them gradually fade away.

Can run-of-the-mill private schools and colleges reboot? Can they change themselves—including both their delivery systems and their cost structures—enough to brighten their own futures? I wouldn't bet a year's tuition on it.

This article originally appeared in the Atlantic.

Keep charter achievement in perspective

May 20, 2013

How satisfied should education reformers and charter enthusiasts be when studies show charter students outperforming those in the local district schools? Sure, it’s a lot better than underperforming, and yes, it’s a fine thing for the girls and boys who benefit from this value-add (as well as from the safety, variety, intimacy, family engagement, and other pluses that typically accompany charter school attendance). But observe what a low achievement bar this kind of comparison generally sets. The “virtual-twin” district school that is generally the basis for comparison is usually a miserable excuse for an educational institution, and the kids who shifted into the charter school had ample reason to want out. Their parents had ample reason to want better opportunities for their children. But is “better than” good enough at a time when college and career readiness is the goal of the larger K–12 enterprise and when preparation for international competitiveness is the country’s education target? Would you be satisfied with your golf score if it were a few points lower than someone who shoots 100? Would you be satisfied with your weight loss if you were now at 300 pounds compared with the other guy’s 320? Would you be pleased with your child’s medical outlook if his doctor bungled fewer cases than the next one but was still on the verge of malpractice? I think not. Let's understand that charter schools, too, need to produce strong educational results for their pupils, not just scores that are a bit better than the disasters down the street.

First Bell 5-20-13

May 20, 2013

A first look at today's most important education news:

Fordham's latest

"Superintendents’ views on Ohio’s education reforms," by Terry Ryan, Ohio Gadfly Daily

"Am I a part of the cure...or the disease?," by Michael J. Petrilli, Flypaper

In response to Democratic mayoral candidates’ bashing of Mayor Bloomberg’s education agenda, Dennis Walcott, New York City’s schools chancellor, has begun a campaign to remind voters of the administration’s accomplishments. (New York Times)

CREDO found that 42 percent of Michigan’s charters are outperforming traditional public schools in math, with similar results in reading, while just 6 percent of the charters underperform their traditional counterparts in math. (Wall Street Journal)

Anger has erupted in New York City and beyond over “field tests,” standardized exams intended to assess not students but future tests. (New York Times)

The Hechinger Report profiles a virtual classroom simulator that allows teachers-in-training to practice managing a classroom.

Laurene Powell Jobs, Steve Jobs’s widow, has quietly begun to assert philanthropy goals in education, global conservation, nutrition, and immigration policy. (New York Times)

A federal report finds that forty states have looked into allegations of cheating by school officials on tests in the last two years. (Curriculum Matters)

A Pew study finds that most teachers believe their students don’t have the digital-literacy skills to wade through online information effectively. (Education Week)

Karen Lewis has been reelected to lead the Chicago Teachers Union. (Answer Sheet)

Implementation of the Common Core, Third Grade Reading Guarantee, other reforms hinges on leadership

May 17, 2013

“This is about leadership.” Such was the closing comment of state superintendent Dick Ross at this morning’s Columbus event “Always Reformed, Always Reforming.” It was a remark spurred by the findings from Fordham’s recent publication Half Empty or Half Full? Superintendents’ Views on Ohio’s Education Reforms. At this event, school and policy-making leaders gathered to discuss the findings of Fordham's newest publication, a survey of Ohio's superintendents who are tasked with implementing a host of eduational reforms.

Steve Farkas of the FDR Group led off the event with a presentation of the findings the survey of 344 of the state's 614 superintendents. The survey found varied opinion from school leaders for the Buckeye State’s recent reforms. Among the seven reforms we inquired about, superintendents strongly support the Common Core and individualized learning. District superintendents, however, are far less enamored with the Third Grade Reading Guarantee and school choice options (vouchers and charter schools).

A panel discussion followed with Fordham’s Terry Ryan moderating and Senator Peggy Lehner, Kirk Hamilton, and Steve Dackin participating on the panel. Senator Lehner is the chair of the Senate Education Committee, Kirk Hamilton is the executive director of the Buckeye Association of School Administrators (BASA), and Dackin is the superintendent of Reynoldsburg City Schools near Columbus.

Panelists (from left to right): State superintendent Dick Ross, Steve Farkas of the FDR Group, Kirk Hamilton of the Buckeye Association of School Administrators, Steve Dackin of Reynoldsburg City Schools

The first topic of discussion was the Common Core. The panelists agreed that the Common Core has considerable potential to improve education for Ohio’s youngsters. Lehner remarked that educator support for the Common Core has helped Ohio’s lawmakers “weather the storm” of recent anti-Common Core agitation. Also agreed upon was that K-12 education must push ahead by integrating technology into classrooms and individualizing learning. Both, the panelists thought, can better inspire and engage children in their education.

Less common ground was found when it came to the Third Grade Reading Guarantee—Ohio’s recent law requiring third graders to demonstrate proficiency in reading before entering fourth grade. Dackin reported that, for the most part, his district has been pushing hard in primary education even before the law. Meanwhile, Lehner maintained that the policy is the right policy—Ohio has far too many kids who can’t read—and a state law, on the books, will push districts harder to prioritize the basics of early education.

Finally, the panelists found the least consensus when it came to school governance: Specifically, what role should local communities have (which as Hamilton pointed out, vary widely in culture and values) and what role should the state of Ohio play in students’ education? A brief exchange between Lehner and Hamilton sums up the complexity of governance—public education is akin to a marriage: It takes hard work to get it right—and sometimes there are arguments and sometimes there’s dysfunction.

Implementing education policy remains complex, the panelists seemed to agree. And, all this brings us full-circle to Dick Ross’ statement. Implementing serious—and often complex—education reform for the betterment of Ohio’s 1.8 million school-aged children is “all about leadership.” Are superintendents willing and able to faithfully lead the implementation of these changes? Time will tell, and here’s hoping.

To read the full findings of Fordham’s survey of Ohio superintendents, please click here. For more reaction to the report, please visit the Columbus Dispatch and StateImpact Ohio.

Am I a part of the cure...or the disease?

May 17, 2013

This article originally appeared on Education Week’s Bridging Differences blog, where Mike Petrilli will be debating Deborah Meier through mid-June.

Confusion never stops
Closing walls and ticking clocks
Gonna come back and take you home
I could not stop that you now know

Come out upon my seas
Cursed missed opportunities
Am I a part of the cure?
Or am I part of the disease?
-Coldplay, "Clocks," A Rush of Blood to the Head, 2002

Is everything for which reformers fight actually making things worse?
Photo by ToniVC

Dear Deborah,

I am haunted by the title of your last post: “The Testing Obsession Widens the Gap.”

Could this possibly be true? Is test-based school reform reducing opportunity for America's neediest children? Is everything for which we school reformers fight actually making things worse? Am I a part of the cure, or am I part of the disease?

"It's OK to ask: 'What if I'm wrong?'" you wrote last week. So let me ask it. It wouldn't be the first time. A year ago, for example, I explored the "test-score hypothesis"—a line of reasoning, undergirding much of the reform movement, that says that if we can significantly improve low-income students' math and reading skills, as measured by standardized tests, we can significantly increase their chances of escaping poverty.

Let's unpack this hypothesis a bit.

As it stands now, children born into poverty come into kindergarten with massive deficits—in terms of vocabulary, content knowledge, and non-cognitive skills. And if they make it to high school graduation thirteen years later (and many will not), they will leave, on average, reading and doing math at an eighth-grade level. Of the low-income teens that give higher education a shot, the vast majority will end up in remedial education and then wash out. More than half of poor children will become poor adults, with poor children of their own. The cycle will repeat. Our hope is that by improving our schools (and, yes, other things too), we can change this narrative.

Let's imagine that our schools can help the average child born into poverty do somewhat better. Let's say that with a combination of talented and well-trained teachers, a rich and rigorous curriculum, lots of supports, and strong leadership, we're able to get poor students, on average, to a tenth-grade level by the time they graduate high school. Suddenly they can attend a community college, or even a four-year university, without starting in remedial education. They are much more likely to graduate, at least with an associate's degree or a technical credential. Rather than making minimum wage, they will make a living wage.

They are less likely to get pregnant as teens, or end up in prison, or drop out of the workforce. Their children wouldn't be born poor—they would be born middle class. This would be transformative.

Notice the key assumption built into this "theory of action": reading and math matter a lot. Getting to the tenth-grade level instead of the eighth-grade level (even as measured by rinky-dinky standardized tests) would make a meaningful difference in real lives. With that assumption in place, it's not crazy—in fact, it's perfectly rational—to hold schools accountable for helping their students make progress every year with their reading and math skills. It's smart to put in place clear, high standards—let's call them common-core standards—that will delineate the path from poverty to prosperity, that will help schools and teachers focus on the knowledge and skills that matter most, and will get students to true readiness for college and career by the age of eighteen.

So Deborah, are you ready for the big question, the kicker, the heart of the matter?

How sure are we that it's literacy and numeracy, and related academic knowledge and skills, that are the most important precursors to success in college, career, and life? What if something else is just as important, or even more important, like "non-cognitive skills" or personal relationships? (Or perhaps the habit of "serious intellectual inquiry," as you put it?)

And what if our "testing obsession" is crowding these other things out?

These are critical questions, but here's what gives me solace.

First, the evidence is quite strong that reading and math achievement are critical tickets to the middle class. Look, for example, at the blockbuster study from Raj Chetty, John Friedman, and Jonah Rockoff that examined the impact of teachers on students' long-term outcomes. As Kevin Carey explained at the time,

If you believe standardized tests are worthless or highly flawed or deeply inadequate or even troublingly limited in accuracy and scope-and many reasonable people believe these things-then you could dismiss or downplay value-added measures of teacher effectiveness, by definition....But now the CFR study says that teachers who are unusually good at helping students score high on standardized tests today aren't just unusually good at helping students score high on standardized tests tomorrow. They also have an unusual effect on the likelihood of students going to college, going to a good college, earning a good living, living in a nice place, and saving for retirement. In other words, whatever the limitations of standardized tests may be, test-based value-added scores do, in fact, provide valuable information about the things most people care most about.

Or look at the evidence that E.D. Hirsch cites about the impact of teenagers' vocabularies on their long-term prospects, such as a 1999 study that shows that "a gain of one standard deviation on the Armed Forces Qualification Test raises one's annual income by nearly $10,000 (in 2012 dollars)."

Or a brand-new study from the United Kingdom (flagged by Joanne Jacobs) that finds that "math skills at 7 predict earnings at 42."

Surely reading and math aren't all that matters. Paul Tough makes a good case for non-cognitive skills. Others, yourself included, point to the importance of strong personal relationships with mentors. We could name more. But reading and math skills are at least necessary, if not sufficient.

On the other hand, there's little evidence that the "testing obsession" is systematically getting in the way of good teaching and learning in high-poverty schools. That's not because an obsession with testing isn't a problem. It surely is, with its temptations of cheating, narrowing of the curriculum, and the culture of fear that it often perpetuates.

But here's the rub, Deborah: Studies of high-poverty schools in America have demonstrated for decades that great teaching and learning have always been the exception, not the norm. To believe that testing is making these schools worse, you have to believe that they were once pretty good, or at least better than they are now. I just don't see it. Do you? Where's the evidence of that?

Furthermore, think back to Kevin Carey's comments on the Chetty study. If an obsession with reading and math was crowding out more important tasks, why would students with stronger reading and math gains do better long-term than their peers?

Here's what your readers need to remember: The choice today is not between 100,000 Central Park Easts or Mission Hills and 100,000 test-prep factories. If it were, I'd pick the Deborah Meier schools in a heartbeat. But let's face it: There aren't more than a handful of Deborah Meier schools out there. (The same goes with Don Hirsch schools or Mike Feinberg/Dave Levin schools, or any other brand you want to name.)

The typical high-poverty school is, and has always been, pretty mediocre. That's not an indictment of the people who work in these schools; the problem is the system. And it's not unique to education. Any big, bureaucratic government agency is going to struggle to achieve effectiveness, much less excellence. (Think the DMV.) Heck, even most large, private-sector companies are pretty lame, especially ones that don't face much competition. (Think the electric company.) Layer on top of that all of the distracting demands placed upon schools, the fragmented nature of education governance, and, in some places at least, too few resources, and it would be a miracle if the typical high-poverty public school were good, much less great.

So do I think testing and accountability make matters worse? No. In fact, based on the studies cited above, I think they will make matters marginally better. I also think stronger standards and tests (a la Common Core) will make things better still.

What about you, Deborah? Are you willing to ask "What if I'm wrong?" What if it's true that reading and math skills are hugely related to opportunities in life, and indeed are malleable? What if "direct instruction," which you say isn't needed, really is the most effective method for helping children in poverty develop those skills? What if it's patently untrue that children learn "vocabulary, grammar, syntax, and spelling ... the same way we learn everything else that matters," as you stated last week, but instead have to be taught systematically? What if the perfect for which you have spent decades championing really is the enemy of the good—and the greater good, for millions of boys and girls throughout America?

Deborah, with all due respect, I ask you to ask yourself: Am I a part of the cure, or am I part of the disease?

Mike

Religious schools, the ADA, and the Justice Department

May 16, 2013

The Justice Department has taken school-voucher policy to unstable ground. Last month, three agency attorneys sent a letter to Wisconsin officials declaring that the Badger State hasn’t done enough to protect the rights of students with disabilities who participate in voucher programs in Milwaukee and Racine. But the prescription contained within that letter would effectively entangle religious schools in the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), from which they have largely been exempted.

The trouble started two years ago, when the American Civil Liberties Union and Disability Rights Wisconsin complained to the Justice Department that private schools in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program were violating the ADA. They argued that the schools were failing to accommodate disabled students, discouraging some from attending and improperly expelling others. (NB: These groups did not make these claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (i.e., special education); private schools are clearly exempt from its requirements.)

The Justice Department didn’t determine whether Milwaukee’s private schools had violated the ADA, but its civil-rights attorneys did tell the Wisconsin schools superintendent, Tony Evers, that he “must do more to enforce the federal statutory and regulatory requirements that govern the treatment of students with disabilities who participate in the school choice program.” Evers, according to the letter, must also count all of the disabled students enrolled at voucher schools and determine how many of them end up suspended or expelled. And he must advise these schools about all of their ADA obligations (such as making their facilities wheelchair accessible) while developing a procedure whereby disabled students attending voucher schools can complain of discrimination.

Here’s the rub: While non-sectarian private schools have fallen under the requirements of the ADA since it was enacted in 1990, churches and religiously affiliated schools have been exempt from most of its provisions. That’s important in this case, because about 86 percent of the 123 private schools in the Milwaukee and Racine voucher programs are religious.

When Congress first debated the ADA, the Association of Christian Schools International successfully led the charge to exempt religious groups from provisions that required private entities to remove any barriers that hindered access for the disabled (otherwise known as Title III). The association argued that ADA compliance would be too costly for religious schools, many of which were in older buildings that couldn’t be renovated or retrofitted without great expense. Moreover, its leaders argued, enforcement of the law would improperly entangle government with religion.

The Justice letter, however, effectively nullifies that exemption and concludes that it doesn’t matter whether a school in the Milwaukee or Racine voucher program is religious. Instead, it declares, “The state cannot, by delegating the education function to private voucher schools, place [voucher] students beyond the reach of the federal laws that require Wisconsin to eliminate disability discrimination in its administration of public programs.” Hence, institutions taking part in the state-funded voucher program must comply with Title II of the ADA, which applies to state and local governments.

The problem with this reasoning is that neither the state nor local school districts are contracting with private and sectarian schools to provide a public education. The Wisconsin Supreme Court determined as much in a 1998 decision that upheld the constitutionality of the Milwaukee voucher program. The justices wrote that “the program does not involve the State in any way with the schools’ governance, curriculum, or day-to-day affairs.” Rather, the program “vests power in the hands of parents to choose where to direct the funds allocated for their children’s benefit.”

The same can be said of any direct voucher program. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2002 (in the well-known Zelman decision) that a Cleveland voucher program gave parents “genuine choice” in where to attend school—a private decision over which the state had no control.

But if the Justice Department can interpret things differently in Wisconsin, then its conclusions may apply in all of the nine states and the District of Columbia that also fund voucher programs. (Tax-credit-scholarship programs would almost certainly still be safe, as they aren’t funded with public dollars.)

One can surely make the case that schools that take public funds should adhere to certain public regulations. (That’s the case, in our view, when it comes to testing and transparency requirements.) Perhaps private schools, including religious schools, should also be required to be wheelchair accessible and such as a condition of receiving taxpayer dollars. But that’s a decision for Congress to make, not three attorneys from the Justice Department.

First Bell 5-16-13

May 16, 2013

A first look at today's most important education news:

Fordham's latest

"The moderate extremism of relinquishment," by Neerav Kingsland, Flypaper

"Religious schools, the ADA, and the Justice Department," by Adam Emerson, Choice Words

The Chicago Teachers Union has filed suit over the city’s planned closings of more than fifty schools; parents are divided. (New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, and Hechinger Report)

Bill Thompson, a Democratic NYC mayoral candidate, outlines his education agenda, which includes a plan for teacher merit pay. (New York Times and Wall Street Journal)

Researchers are beginning to look at how to measure skills learned in preschool. (Inside School Research)

New York City parents with backgrounds in statistics are questioning the city’s method of determining gifted-and-talented eligibility, arguing that a flaw in the city’s calculations meant too many kids qualified. (Wall Street Journal)

Kiera Wilmot, the sixteen-year-old model student expelled and charged with felonies last week for a failed science experiment, will not be criminally charged—but she may still be expelled. (Atlantic Wire and Huffington Post)

The LAUSD, the nation’s second-largest school district, has decided to stop expelling or suspending students for “willful defiance.” (Wall Street Journal and NPR)

A study has linked seven-year-olds’ math and reading skills to midlife financial success. (Huffington Post)

David Letterman and ten Teach for America professionals remind us why teaching is worth it. (Huffington Post)

By the Company It Keeps: The U.S. Department of Education

May 15, 2013

This revealing back-and-forth with the United States Department of Education is the third and final installment in our testing-consortia series.

“The Department,” like any hulking, beltway-bound federal agency, can seem like a cold, faceless leviathan—this imposing force, issuing impenetrable regulations from a utilitarian, vaguely Soviet, city block–sized building in the shadow of the Capitol.

But those who interact with it regularly, especially those of us fortunate enough to have worked there, know that it is made up of hundreds and hundreds of very fine people.

During my tenure there, I found both the career staff and the political appointees to be knowledgeable public servants and excellent colleagues. While working for a state department of education, I found the Department’s team to be thoughtful, accessible, and accommodating. And in my loyal-opposition think-tank stints, during which I sometimes find myself poking and prodding the Department, they’ve been patient, respectful, but understandably steely adversaries.

I’m appreciative that they took the time to answer these questions so thoroughly, and I’m flabbergasted that they did so at—in terms of agency timelines—Guinness-Book speed.

What would the U.S. Department of Education (ED) like people to know about the testing consortia?

The consortia are designing the next generation of assessment systems, which include diagnostic or formative assessments, not just end-of-the-year summative assessments. Their systems will assess student achievement of standards, student growth, and whether students are on-track to being college and career ready. These new systems will offer significant improvements directly responsive to the wishes of teachers and other practitioners: they will offer better assessment of critical thinking, through writing and real-world problem solving, and offer more accurate and rapid scoring. The Smarter Balanced consortium’s assessment will also be “computer-adaptive,” meaning that the difficulty of questions will adjust to students’ ability levels as they proceed through the test.

The two consortia are making significant progress developing their assessment systems and are making an effort to be as transparent as possible, going well beyond what is typical in an assessment-development process. They have released a wide variety of information on how they will create the assessments and have invited comment from educators, district practitioners, additional national experts and the public. In addition, both PARCC and Smarter Balanced have released sample items to offer educators and the public an early look and will release additional questions this summer.

When the two consortia roll out their new assessments in the 2014-15 school year, they will be works in progress. We fully expect some schedule adjustments and technical glitches. Assessment 2.0 will need lots of work to get to version 2.1 and 2.2. States and districts will improve implementation as they learn from pilots and field tests. And teachers will play an absolutely critical role in providing the consortia feedback about what works and what doesn’t work.

How important are PARCC and Smarter Balanced to Common Core? Is the fate of the standards tied to the fate of the consortia?

This new generation of assessments—combined with the adoption of internationally benchmarked, college and career-ready standards—is an absolute game-changer for American education. PARCC and Smarter Balanced are tremendously important as a step forward to getting better, more accurate, and more actionable data about what students know and can do. As important as better assessments are, they must work in tandem with high-quality curriculum; meaningful, job-embedded professional development; and all the other pieces that will support educators preparing to teach to these new standards.

Most education observers know the consortia received federal funding several years ago. But the field probably knows less about ED’s interactions with the consortia since. That is, have they been on their own, or has ED been providing technical assistance and advice along the way?

As with all grantees, the Department works to ensure that the grants are on track, that funds are spent appropriately, and that we have actively supported grantee success. See the RTTA Program Review Process for some additional details. In addition, because we recognize the complexity of the consortia’s work, we have held a series of public meetings over the past two years to address particular components of their system—state and local technology needs, automated scoring of assessments, and how to improve the accessibility of assessments for all students, particularly students with disabilities and English learners. While each consortium has created its own technical advisory group, the Department recently created the RTTA Technical Review to help analyze each consortium’s progress and identify areas where additional attention may be necessary.

There have been recent signs of trouble. Alabama just abandoned the consortia (after Utah did so last year). Florida’s chief Tony Bennett said he’s looking for a “Plan B.” A March survey revealed that 65 percent and 70 percent of “education insiders” thought that PARCC and Smarter Balanced, respectively, were on the wrong track. What’s ED’s reaction to these events?

The states are the vital decision-makers here. States have demonstrated remarkable leadership, first through developing and adopting new, higher standards, and then through design and development of the next generation of high-quality assessments. But this is hard work. We are asking an enormous amount of principals and teachers in the next several years. We fully expect that there will be states that choose not to stay on board, and in those that do, we must provide teachers and principals with the resources and professional development they need to make the transition. Further, even if a state opts out of a consortium now, they can re-enter at any time in the future.

Does ED have a message to states contemplating exiting the consortia?

States must make the right decisions for their students and communities. There’s overwhelming agreement that high standards and well-aligned assessments, emphasizing critical thinking and writing, are vital to serving students well. How states get there is entirely up to them.

It’s worth pointing out that when the states developed the Common Core State Standards, they provided some important distinctions from current standards and current state tests. For example, the Common Core emphasizes writing in the English language arts standards. Any assessment aligned to the Common Core needs to similarly emphasize writing, which is a skill children need to be ready for college and the workforce. These and other distinctions mean that assessments that truly measure the Common Core will likely look different from current state tests, necessary as we move from fill-in-the-bubble tests toward more engaging assessments that better mirror good instruction in the classroom.

It seems that ED has leverage because of promises states made when applying for NCLB waivers and accepting stimulus and Race to the Top funding. Would the Department exercise the authority it has in an effort to hold the consortia together, or would the Department stand down and allow each state to make the decision it deems best?

The Department is focused on states developing college- and career-ready standards and aligned high-quality assessments that provide a better, more accurate measure of what students know and can do and whether they graduate high school ready for college or the workforce. We don’t want to see any state go backward. We expect the consortia to develop assessment systems that are markedly better than current assessments and we expect them to be already considering how to continue innovating and improving the systems. We understand that states may choose a different way of measuring whether its students are ready for college and careers and we are working with states such as Minnesota, Virginia, and Utah on their approaches. Again, states need to individually make the best decision for them based on all the relevant facts.

Do you trust that states opting out of the consortia will pick assessments possessing the characteristics the Department wanted to be part of assessments in the Common Core era—e.g., tightly aligning with the new standards, moving beyond “bubble tests,” accurately measuring performance at the ends of the performance distribution, and producing final results quickly?

We expect that all states will continue to improve their assessment systems. This currently includes requirements that state tests are aligned to the standards chosen by the state, provide accurate, valid, and reliable data about student knowledge and skills, and measures higher-order thinking skills. In December 2012 the Department paused our peer review of state assessment systems in order to reconsider whether our criteria and process for evaluating assessments is sufficient to measure whether an assessment system is a high-quality measure of college and career readiness. We will be providing additional detail in the coming months about our process and our criteria. Once complete, all assessment systems, including PARCC, Smarter Balanced, and all other state assessment systems, will be required to demonstrate how they meet the requirements for technical quality, alignment, and other assessment best practices. It is vital students, parents and educators receive reliable and valid information on student achievement of standards, student growth, and whether students are on-track to being college and career ready regardless of what state they reside in.

If states splinter, going their own ways on test and, presumably, cut scores, haven’t we lost much of the rationale for states’ adopting Common Core? Won’t we be left unable to conduct cross-state comparisons, and won’t states still be able to lower the proficiency bar to improve their scores?

Having multiple state assessment systems aligned to common content standards with different cut scores and proficiency standards would make comparison harder (though not impossible), which would be unfortunate. In addition, the public reporting and transparency required under ESEA would continue to be an avenue to identify schools and districts that are doing a good job and identify where states are lagging in what they expect of students. States that have college- and career-ready standards will continue to work with their institutions of higher education to identify what it means to measure college- and career-readiness on state tests. This is important work that PARCC and Smarter Balanced are actively engaged in and something that has been lacking in state assessment systems previously. For states not in either consortium in the future, the connection to higher education will help ensure that states set a rigorous bar for college and career readiness. In addition, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) will continue to give the nation a “report card” on how students are doing across states.

A reasonable person might ask, “If the private market seems to be producing assessments that meet states’ needs, why did ED spend well more than $300 million to develop tests?” Could you please explain ED’s thinking behind these investments?

In 2010, in direct response to requests from governors and chief state school officers, the Department elected to use a portion of the Race to the Top funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to support the next generation of assessment because the market was not meeting their needs. Current state tests were missing several important opportunities—they often did not measure the full range of what students should know, focusing on easier skills and ignoring hard-to-measure standards, and most states did not include writing in their assessment systems (to name just a few of the issues with the current market of tests).

We have already seen the Race to the Top Assessment program move the field of assessment. Forty-four states and DC, working in two consortia to develop assessments aligned to the Common Core, have pushed the field to react in ways they likely would not have reacted if each state were separately pursuing a new set of assessments. A 2012 study by the RAND Corporation, for example, indicated that most state tests do not assess “deeper learning skills” of cognitively complex tasks. By contrast, an initial study of the consortia by CRESST in 2013 shows promising results for the consortia’s ability to measure students’ ability “mastering and being able to apply core academic content and cognitive strategies related to complex thinking, communication, and problem solving.”

In recent months, concerns about cheating have skyrocketed as a number of cities and states have been forced to address serious allegations. Is ED concerned about test security given that numerous states will be giving the same exams during different test windows?

Yes, the Department is concerned about test security. We don’t think the concerns are any greater with PARCC and Smarter Balanced than with current state tests; though the challenges may change slightly due to the tests being primarily computer-based and the fact that a breach in security could have repercussions beyond a single state. The consortia need to establish security controls and procedures to address these issues, and we expect them to do so as they ramp up toward the field test in spring 2014 and the first operational assessment in the 2014-2015 school year.

It’s worth pointing out that in recent months, critics have claimed that high-stakes tests drive teachers and school administrators to cheat. But that argument confuses correlation with causation. And it also ignores history. There is no excuse for school administrators and teachers tampering with student tests to boost test scores. It is morally indefensible—and it is most damaging to the very students who most desperately need the help of their teachers and school leaders.

We reject the idea that the system makes people cheat. Millions of educators administer tests but very few chose to cheat. In all but a tiny minority of cases, teachers want their children to genuinely learn and grow—not achieve phony gains to make themselves or their schools look good. In places where a district’s culture is rotten, people must speak out. But the vast, vast majority of educators are committed to assessing their students’ progress with complete integrity.

For more, check out Andy Smarick's interviews with PARCC and Smarter Balanced.

First Bell 5-15-13

May 15, 2013

A first look at today's most important education news:

Fordham's latest

"By the Company It Keeps: Smarter Balanced," by Andy Smarick, Common Core Watch

As a result of budget cuts, NAEP will scale back its social-studies exam, offering it to only eighth graders for the time being. (Curriculum Matters and Politics K–12)

City councilmembers in Takoma Park, MD, have lowered the voting age to sixteen for city elections; the law takes effect in fifty days. (Associated Press)

Chicago is set to try a program that blends math tutoring with an anti-violence counseling intervention. (Curriculum Matters)

A new report argues that when their third grader cheats on a test, parents should not overreact; first and second graders are typically taught to work together, and the new focus on independent learning can be confusing. (Wall Street Journal)

Federal data find that states’ teacher exams are too easy to pass. (Education Week)

A report finds that the youngest English-language learners benefit most from dual-language instruction. (Learning the Language)

Yesterday in San Francisco, six current and former school district employees were charged with embezzling $15 million in grant money from the district. (Huffington Post)

The moderate extremism of relinquishment

May 15, 2013

Relinquishment is based on three principles: (1) educators should operate schools, (2) families should choose amongst these schools, and (3) government should hold schools accountable for performance and equity.

Outside of these three principles, I hold few ironclad beliefs on education. Yet in conversation, I find that others attribute principles to Relinquishment that I don’t hold. This probably stems from a lack of clear communication on my part, so let me provide additional clarity:

Relinquishment is not anti-union

Relinquishment is a reaction against management, not labor. Admittedly, I disagree with certain policies put forth by unions and their members, but individuals should possess the right to collectively bargain with their employers. Relinquishment only posits that the government should not be a party to the bargain; rather, the bargaining parties should be union and school operator. From here, results will dictate the future of unions. If unionized schools thrive, unions themselves will also thrive. I do understand that, from an organizing standpoint, unionizing decentralized charter schools will be more difficult than signing a singular collective bargaining contract with the district—but I do not believe this issue should trump the more salient issue of academic performance.

Relinquishment assumes equity in access is not the natural state of school systems

People concerned about ensuring that all public school students have equitable access to great schools often suggest that the best solution is to (1) force all kids into one system and (2) have that one operator allocate students to maximize equity. This rarely works. Due to attendance zones, many traditional school districts have highly inequitable enrollment patterns. Yet, I’m also sympathetic to the idea that when charters serve 10–20 percent of a system, these schools may attract more motivated families. In New Orleans, where I work, I’ve witnessed charters serving an increasingly at-risk student population as the traditional system has winnowed. Neither traditional nor charter systems will—on their own—deliver equity.

There is a fix to this: Cities should develop government-managed enrollment systems that regulate non-government school operators. The solution to inequitable enrollment is not to restrict choice. The solution is to create a process that ensures transparency and equity in enrollment, transfers, and expulsions. New Orleans has developed such a system (though it remains a work in progress). Others should follow suit. Government should achieve equity via school regulation, not school operation—in this sense, I believe that equity demands we put some guardrails around choice.

Relinquishment is hesitant to cast its position in historical civil-rights language

Education leaders often state that education reform is the civil-rights issue of our time. Whenever I hear this, I wonder: Who is the oppressor?

Is this a racial conflict? Well, both sides of the reform debate are diverse. And no side has a monopoly on African American support: NAACP, BAEO, Stand for Children—all are African American–led and all hold very different opinions on reform.

Are the wealthy the oppressors? This is unlikely. Most wealthy people in urban areas send their children to private schools but still pay taxes to fund public schools at fairly generous rates that compare well to international averages. The wealthy have not shrugged off their responsibility to fund public schools, and many are giving their own funds to support reform; whether or not one agrees with their strategies, Bill Gates, Eli Broad, and others hardly seem malevolent.

In short, the current education-reform movement, while having significant civil rights implications, is different than previous civil-rights battles. The current battle is one of strategy, not desired outcomes. Everyone wants poor children to succeed. Different groups simply have different ideas on how to achieve this outcome. Perhaps the most telling sign that we’re in a different civil-rights paradigm is the fact that both sides sincerely claim Martin Luther King Jr. as a role model. And, to an extent, both can do so with some legitimacy.

Relinquishment has realistic (but ambitious) aims

Students attending our best charter schools achieve impressive results. The top-tier charter schools in the country often produce SAT scores in the 1400 range and ACT scores in the 19 to 20 range. Students who may have otherwise dropped out of high school are now attending two- and four-year colleges. But, on average, these students are not prepared to excel at more rigorous four-year universities. Additionally, in looking at more rigorous statistical measures of successful charter sectors (experimental and quasi-experimental results in cities such as New Orleans, Boston, Memphis, Indianapolis, Detroit, Newark, Nashville, etc.), we often see the same trends: real positive effects but not academic miracles.

Let me add two caveats.

First, what some claim to be able to do in one generation we may be able to do in two generations. Students who grow up in severe poverty and achieve middle-class (or even lower-middle-class) status will then better prepare their own children for additional educational advancement. Perhaps these children will achieve at the levels some now promise. Second, the above is only based on our current abilities to educate children. My hope is that Relinquishment will greatly accelerate innovation, which will then increase our ability to drive academic gains. I’m not sure how we get from here to there. I just think a Relinquishment-based system will increase the probability that we get there.

Relinquishment as moderate extremism

Relinquishment is extreme in that what it calls for (non-governmental operation of schools, parental choice, and limited but effective regulation) currently only exists in one major city in our country.

But in other respects, Relinquishment is moderate. Relinquishment does not call for an end to unions. It does not aim to abolish government’s involvement in public schooling. It does not predict unearthly results.

All Relinquishment assumes is that empowered educators and families will achieve increased outcomes.

Neerav Kingsland is the CEO of New Schools for New Orleans.