Is the charter-school movement stuck in a rut?

Chester E. Finn, Jr. / July 28, 2011

Quite the rut 
(Photo by Brian Tomlinson 19)

As the U.S. charter fleet sails past the 5,000-school and two-decade markers, there is reason to worry that it’s getting complacent, unimaginative, and self-interested.

This criticism is separate from the quality-and-achievement challenges that beset many current schools and the “caps,” fiscal constraints, and political/bureaucratic barriers that continue to confront far too many of them in far too many places. Here I refer to accumulating signs of resistance among the movement’s own captains and admirals to schools that would fly the charter flag but don’t behave exactly like the typical charter schools of the past twenty years.

It would be a pity if the charter enterprise were now to grow rigid and intolerant, considering how well it has accommodated some extraordinarily interesting and unconventional schools, institutional forms, and uses of chartering unimagined back in 1991. Think of teacher-led schools sans principal, schools for disabled kids, and schools for dropouts. “Virtual” and “hybrid” schools, some of them operating statewide, some as part of national franchises. For-profit operators and multi-campus management organizations—even single charters harboring multiple schools with distinct operators. We have single-sex schools. Early-college schools. Schools with curricular foci that range from “back to basics” to “experiential.” Schools that restore “local control” to small towns aggrieved by excessive district consolidation. Schools that experiment with unconventional union contracts, even a couple of schools run by unions.

» Continued

Is the charter-school movement stuck in a rut?

Quality control in K-12 digital learning

Frederick M. Hess / July 28, 2011

Virtual schooling’s greatest power is that it creates the opportunity to reconsider what is feasible in K-12 education. Digital learning makes it possible to deliver expertise over great distances, permits instructors to specialize, allows schools to use staff in more targeted and cost-effective ways, and customizes the scope, sequence, and pacing of curriculum and instruction for individual children. These add up to facilitating the delivery of high-quality, high-impact instruction. But because it destandardizes and decentralizes educational delivery, digital education is far harder to bring under the yoke of the quality-control systems and metrics that have been put in place for traditional school structures.

To realize the potential gains in cost efficiency, customization, instructional quality, pupil engagement, and—ultimately—student learning that the digital age makes possible will require policymakers and practitioners to find new ways to monitor and police the quality of what’s being delivered, and learned. Yet absent the familiar panoply of credentials, staffing ratios, instructional hours, Carnegie units, and school days that now provide tangible assurance that a given school is “real” and legitimate, digital learning will struggle with finding acceptance—and could be bent to the advantage of those who don’t place educational achievement at the top of their priorities.

Unfortunately, it is difficult today even to visualize, much less to craft, brand-new quality-control systems that adapt perfectly to the seismic shift that digital learning represents. The best that policymakers can do at present is to select among—or combine—three basic approaches, each with its own significant limitations:

• Input and process regulation;
• Outcome-based accountability; and
• Market-based quality

  » Continued

  ---

  Quality control in K-12 digital learning

The little ed school that could

July 28, 2011

Enthralling lecture 
(Photo by Robert S. Donovan 19)

While traditional ed schools continue to defy efforts at reform and transparency, other innovative teacher-training programs are moving forward. Enter New York-based Relay School of Education as a prime specimen. There are no university campuses or lecture halls for Relay’s students, who spend most of their training in their own classrooms under the guidance of mentors. Degrees aren’t conferred based on GPA or class time. To complete Relay’s two-year program—which encompasses 60 “modules” connected to real-world issues, like pacing and discipline—just demonstrate that your students have made at least one year of academic progress in your chosen subject. A fantastic evolution—but not one that is universally welcomed. Status-quo defenders have already lamented Relay’s alleged de-professionalization of teaching. It’s hard to believe, though, that novice teachers will receive less professional preparation as active participants in real K-12 classrooms than they would get in a distant university setting, half-listening to yet another lecture on Paulo Freire.

» Continued

The little ed school that could

Much ado about nothing

July 28, 2011

Enacted just two months ago, Tennessee’s new virtual-education measure is receiving much flack from Democrats and Republicans alike. At issue is the $5,387 in per-pupil funding marked for the virtual charters opened under the bill’s auspices. Critics assert that these charters siphon cash from district schools, leaving them bereft of resources. But a word of caution to these critics: Average per-pupil funding in Tennessee is about $7,900, according to the Census Bureau, so sending students to a virtual charter actually saves about 2,500 education dollars each kid. Virtual charters are a smart new way to leverage twenty-first century technology (and save on building and busing costs to boot). This type of innovation may even be more important in economic downturns than it is in booms.

“‘Virtual school’ in Tennessee may drain taxpayer funds,” The Commercial Appeal, July 25, 2011.

» Continued

Much ado about nothing

The State of Proficiency: How student proficiency rates vary across states, subjects, and grades between 2002 and 2010

Daniela Fairchild / July 28, 2011

Four years ago, Fordham and the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) teamed up to produce “The Proficiency Illusion,” a seminal analysis detailing the gaping discrepancies in proficiency-rate cut scores across states, grades, and subjects. Last month, NWEA released a follow-up, adding nine states to its original analysis in math and eleven states in reading (bringing those totals to thirty-five and thirty-seven, respectively) and extending the analysis through 2010. The new results are just as striking as the old. In grade-eight math, for example, NWEA found a 52-percentile difference between the highest and lowest state cut scores. And individual states continue to make their tests much harder at some grade levels than at others—creating significant problems for AYP determinations, value-added teacher evaluations, and much else. Feel like digging in? Check out the interactive data gallery. Prepare to feel a little ill.

Sarah Durant and Michael Dahlin, “The State of Proficiency: How student proficiency rates vary across states, subjects, and grades between 2002 and 2010,” (Portland, OR: Northwest Evaluation Association, June 2011).

» Continued

The State of Proficiency: How student proficiency rates vary across states, subjects, and grades between 2002 and 2010

A Big Apple for Educators: New York City???s Experiment with Schoolwide Performance Bonuses: Final Evaluation Report

July 28, 2011

This report—a joint effort by RAND, Vanderbilt, and the National Center on Performance Incentives—drove the final nail into the coffin of New York City’s shaky and pricey School-Wide Performance Bonus Program. We learn from this analysis that Gotham’s foray into school-wide bonuses “did not improve student achievement at any grade level.” In fact, average math and ELA scores for participating elementary and middle schools were lower than those of the control group. (There were no effects on scores at the high school level.) To understand why, analysts queried participating teachers—ninety-two percent of whom said the program didn’t affect the way they did their jobs. That shouldn’t surprise anyone, since the bonuses amounted to only $1,500 after taxes, and were tied to higher test scores school-wide—something over which individual teachers have little control. Further, a third of teachers said they didn’t even understand the criteria for obtaining the bonus. Thorough and informative, this report should act as a warning bell for anyone looking to replicate Gotham’s poorly designed (and now defunct) program.

» Continued

A Big Apple for Educators: New York City???s Experiment with Schoolwide Performance Bonuses: Final Evaluation Report

Trajectories of the Home Learning Environment Across the First 5 Years: Associations With children???s Vocabulary and Literacy Skills at Prekindergarten

July 28, 2011

This longitudinal study out of NYU examines the connection between “home-learning environments” and school readiness by tracking a representative sample of 1,852 low-income children at ages one, two, three, and five. (The evaluation is based on things like the number of books read to the child and maternal responsiveness to the child’s requests.) There’s much to plumb here, but one takeaway emerges: Almost 70 percent of the low-income children with consistently strong home environments (ten percent of the total group) performed at or above the national averages for students from all socioeconomic backgrounds—demonstrating the home’s gap-closing potential. Unfortunately, none of the learning environments originally diagnosed as low in quality became literacy-rich by the time the children started pre-Kindergarten, implying that some children are already falling behind (and staying behind) after their first year of life. Now if we could only figure out how to help more parents more effectively play the role of their child’s first teacher.

Eileen T. Rodriguez and Catherine S. Tamis-LeMonda, “Trajectories of the Home Learning Environment Across the First 5 Years: Associations With Children’s Vocabulary and Literacy Skills at Prekindergarten,” (New York, N.Y.: New York University, July/August 2011).

» Continued

Trajectories of the Home Learning Environment Across the First 5 Years: Associations With children???s Vocabulary and Literacy Skills at Prekindergarten

Inside IMPACT: D.C.???s Model Teacher Evaluation System

Jamie Davies O'Leary / July 28, 2011

Outsiders have envied, emulated, and damned D.C.’s famous teacher-evaluation system, IMPACT. But what is the insiders’ perspective? This report from Ed Sector delivers the answer. Author Susan Headden, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, presents a thorough and balanced perspective on this revolutionary (but still emergent) system. She explains the core elements of IMPACT (the classroom observations, instructional buckets against which teachers are measured, etc.), and weaves a narrative that effectively captures the experience of (a sample of) observed teachers, “master educators” (the ones conducting the observations), as well as principals, union leaders, and District staff responsible for developing the system. She notes a few red flags (the distribution of IMPACT’s large performance bonuses are concentrated in already high-performing schools, for example) and details a few places where IMPACT could be improved, notably by doing more to help develop educators rather than simply reward or punish them. But progress is being made on that front. Based on our own interviews (below), we found that, overwhelmingly, teachers saw monumental improvements in professional development, and that the new system gave them specific, tangible ways to enhance instruction.

» Continued Inside IMPACT: D.C.???s Model Teacher Evaluation System Announcements March 25: AEI Common Core Event March 21, 2013 While most discussion about the Common Core State Standards Initiative has focused on its technical merits, its ability to facilitate innovation, or the challenges facing its practical implementation, there has been little talk of how the standards fit in the larger reform ecosystem. At this AEI conference, a set of distinguished panelists will present the results of their research and thoughts on this topic and provide actionable responses to the questions that will mark the next phase of Common Core implementation efforts. The event will take place at the American Enterprise Institute in D.C. on March 25, 2013, from 9:00AM to 5:00PM. It will also be live-streamed online. For more information and to register, click here. Read more announcements Archives Month January February March April May June July August September October November December 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 Sign Up for updates from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute    Please leave this field empty Gadfly Podcast The World is Phat play pause stop mute unmute National         About Us Our Mission Board of Trustees Staff Fellows EEPS Funding and Financing Partners Careers Contact Us Subscribe to the Education Gadfly Online Policy Priorities Standards-Based Reforms Quality Choices A Reform-Driven System Commentary Education Gadfly Weekly Education Gadfly Daily Flypaper Ohio Gadfly Daily Common Core Watch Choice Words Videos Podcasts Publications Standards, Testing & Accountability Talented Tenth Charters & Choice NCLB School Finance Governance Ohio Policy Curriculum & Instruction Digital Learning Teachers Additional Topics Events Upcoming Events Past Events Ohio Policy Ohio Education Gadfly Ohio Publications   Ohio Charters Fordham-Sponsored Schools Applying for Sponsorship Resources for Schools © The Thomas B. Fordham Institute Privacy Policy Usage Agreements 1016 16th St NW, 8th Floor Washington, DC 20036 (202) 223-5452 thegadfly@edexcellence.net nonprofit software