Education Gadfly Weekly
Volume 11, Number 21
June 2, 2011
Opinion + Analysis
Opinion
Where's the Tea Party when you need it?
Insider proof of the madness of local control
By
Peter Meyer
News Analysis
Bending the special-ed cost curve
It requires multiple approaches
By
Chris Tessone
News Analysis
Ohio???s charter schools: Threats from within
Quality must trump quantity?and profits
News Analysis
Hitting it big in Clark County?
Are the three cherries aligning for reform in Vegas?
Reviews
Research
The Condition of Education 2011
Data, data, everywhere?and not a Catholic school to spare
By
Gerilyn Slicker
Research
Steering Capital: Optimizing Financial Support for Innovation in Public Education
Even innovation must be guided?and funded
By
Chris Tessone
Research
Preparing for Growth: Human Capital Innovations in Public Charter Schools
How the best-of-the-best attract talent
By
Kathryn Mullen Upton
Gadfly Studios
Podcast
A Texas high school arms race
Mike and Rick talk substantively (for a change) about: Clark County?s education blueprint, private special-education service providers, and utopian hopes for turnarounds. Amber geeks out with stats from the latest Condition of Education and Chris audibles for a Texas high school football stadium.
Where's the Tea Party when you need it?
Peter Meyer / June 2, 2011
A friend emailed earlier in the week: “Breathtaking.” It was the first of many such emails and phone calls.
Each was referring to a Monday night vote by our local board of education (of which I am a member—though my gadfly tendencies often lead me to butt heads with other board members, and to get shut out of things like budget-making processes). The vote was to impose a budget that raises the local property tax levy by 9.8 percent (triple the New York state average). This wasn’t the first time the board had made this decision—we had originally voted on the tax increase back in April. Yet it was soundly rejected—by a 3 to 1 margin—at the polls on May 17. So back to the board it came, through a back-alley channel known as the “contingency budget law.” How we got to this point—and what has happened since—is a story worth telling.
First, some context. Mine is a tiny (2,000 student) district in upstate New York. It’s a poor community with average family income of just over $30,000, and an unemployment rate of about 9 percent. (Conjure up a Richard Russo novel and you’ll get the picture.) As such, it depends largely on aid from the state and federal governments. (Local sources account for much less than half of our district’s funds.)
|
It is an argument for more local control, not less—provided, of course, Where's the Tea Party when you need it?Bending the special-ed cost curveChris Tessone / June 2, 2011
Photo by Ashley Good Fordham’s recent look at data trends in special-education populations peered under the surface of special-ed funding—but it couldn’t dive fully into those murky waters. But with some states ostensibly spending two or three times as much per student as others, it would appear that savings can be found in this $110 billion-plus lake of school spending—without negatively impacting kids. To that end, some districts are now turning to private companies, like Futures Education, to provide quality services to disabled youngsters at a lower cost. Such firms can play a dual role. First, they are more flexible than public-school districts at providing services where and when they’re needed, hiring and retaining only the staff necessary to serve the present pupil population. If a district employs ten speech therapists on staff, it must find ways (and salaries) to keep all ten busy. A private company that hires contractors, on the other hand, can stay lean and mean. Second, because these firms are somewhat removed from the difficult politics of special ed, they may have more courage—and ability—to say no to unneeded or ineffective services. (This is not unlike the vilified but vital role that insurance companies—or Medicare—play in the healthcare system.) Of course, outsourcing special-education services is not without barnacles. Shady operators will have every incentive to overcharge and underdeliver. As such, districts must consider which services they’re outsourcing, and to Bending the special-ed cost curveOhio???s charter schools: Threats from withinJune 2, 2011 Gadfly has criticized Ohio lawmakers for their efforts to water down charter-school accountability in the Buckeye State. If upheld in the state’s biennial budget (due to be finalized by month’s end), these provisions would downgrade the charter movement in Fordham’s home state to a “full-fledged contender for America’s worst.” An in-depth article in last weekend’s Dayton Daily News spotlights the worst of those legislative provisions and the man who appears to be responsible for them (despite denials by some House members): David Brennan, Akron industrialist and founder of White Hat Management. This firm is currently being sued by the boards of nine Ohio charter schools for illegally usurping their independent oversight and authority over said schools. But if the budgetary provisions passed by the Ohio House were to stand, that court case might be moot. White Hat would be allowed to continue operating all schools sans oversight, despite its slipshod educational-performance record: Two thirds of the schools it operates are rated D or F by the state. (To be fair, many of these schools serve kids who had previously dropped out.) It’s no wonder, then, that Brennan—who has lined GOP pockets with millions of dollars in campaign contributions—lobbied the Republican-controlled Ohio House to insert language that would allow White Hat to “keep secret details of how it spends… public money.” Gadfly is cautiously optimistic that this can get set right before the budget is completed. Two days ago, the heavily Republican Ohio Senate removed these harmful charter-school provisions from the budget bill. Now, however, House and Senate must Ohio???s charter schools: Threats from withinHitting it big in Clark County?June 2, 2011
Photo by Jan Crumpley Dwight Jones gained a rock-star reputation during his time at the helm of Colorado’s state education department. (Among other things, he was the commissioner during enactment of the Rocky Mountain State’s pioneering teacher-evaluation legislation.) Though he hasn’t been in Clark County, NV for long (having been lured to the nation’s fifth largest district in December), he’s already making big moves. Last week, Jones released a dynamite education-reform blueprint, redolent with both familiar reform elements (e.g. performance-based pay and value-added growth modeling) and some cutting-edge proposals. He would, for example, dramatically increase principal autonomy in successful schools, bundling like-performing schools into “performance zones,” each with its own level of support and oversight. “The aim is to achieve more laserlike focus on student performance,” Jones explained. Of course, with education’s hydra-like governance structure (district superintendents work with teacher unions and school boards within the constructs of state and federal legislation), no entity may make unilateral decisions. But that’s part of the appeal and intrigue of Clark County. Jones appears to have a soulmate in Nevada governor Brian Sandoval (though a stick-in-the-mud legislature still poses problems in Carson City). The district's rather abrupt move from growth-and-prosperity to population loss and budget woes makes it even more challenging--and interesting. The slot machine wheels on education reform in Vegas are still spinning but at least a couple of Hitting it big in Clark County?The Condition of Education 2011Gerilyn Slicker / June 2, 2011
Steering Capital: Optimizing Financial Support for Innovation in Public EducationPreparing for Growth: Human Capital Innovations in Public Charter SchoolsKathryn Mullen Upton / June 2, 2011
Preparing for Growth: Human Capital Innovations in Public Charter SchoolsAnnouncementsMarch 25: AEI Common Core EventMarch 21, 2013While 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. ArchivesSign Up for updates from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute |


This latest portrait of American education from the
National Center for Education Statistics is, as usual, dense with useful
information. Perhaps most interesting are the large shifts on the school-choice
front, with charter enrollment ballooning and private-school enrollment losing
air. Over the past decade, the number of public charter-school pupils more than
quadrupled—from 340,000 students in 1999-2000 to 1.4 million students in
2008-09. At the same time, private-school enrollment has deflated. While these
schools taught 6.3 million students in 2001-02, private schools educated 5.5 million
youngsters in 2009-10—a 13 percent decrease. Intriguingly, the pattern varied
by school type. While enrollment in independent and secular private schools
remained constant, religious schools saw sharp declines. Catholic schools were,
once again, hit the hardest. Some other findings come as no shock (though maybe
they should): Total per-pupil expenditures rose by 39 percent (in constant
dollars) from 1989-90 to 2007-08, for example. On the good-news front, drop-out
rates have declined for whites, blacks, and Hispanics over the past thirty
years. Along with its parsed K-12 data, this year’s edition focuses on
postsecondary education, documenting significant increases in total college
enrollment and degrees as well as a bump in for-profit postsecondary enrollment
(from 3 percent in 2000-01 to 9 percent today). In total, higher-education
enrollment now trumps that of high schools: The nation boasted 17.6 million
undergraduates in the fall of 2009 (and 2.9 million postbac students) and 15
million high schoolers (in 2008-09). Choose a preferred topic, dive in, and get
a little nerdy.
Innovation is a buzzword in many ed-reform
circles nowadays—with its presumed capacity to alter, upend, and replace
familiar systems that aren’t working well. To disrupt the status quo requires
cold, hard cash placed in the right hands, however. Bellwether Education’s new report
articulates the financial barriers to educational innovation, focusing on the “irrational,
idiosyncratic” world of education philanthropy; public policies that crowd out
entrepreneurs; and an overall shortage of investment in R&D and technology
in the education world. Offering alternative perspectives and approaches, the
authors look at trends in other sectors and analyze the key elements of
effective social-capital markets. Successes seem to hinge on public-, private-,
and philanthropic-sector collaboration, particularly in creating diverse
sources of investment capital, focusing on metrics and evidence instead of
compliance, and providing a healthy dose of transparent, useful data. Bellwether’s
offering has some affinities with
The growth of high-performing charter schools—and their charter-management organizations (CMOs)—is critical for such schools to
become sound alternatives for additional needy kids. To expand, however, CMOs must overcome
the challenge of finding superior teachers and school leaders. To see how this
has been done and can be done, this Center for American Progress report profiles
Green Dot, IDEA Public Schools, High Tech High, KIPP, Rocketship Education, and
Yes Prep and explains how they have dealt with organizational growth and
human-capital challenges. It seems that these successful CMOs have three things
in common: They formalize recruitment, training, and support processes and infrastructure;
they get the most mileage from available talent by narrowing and
better-defining staff roles; and they import and induct management talent. Toward
that end, many of these organizations have developed their own recruiting tools
and candidate evaluations. Some offer extensive professional development aligned
with their organizational cultures. Most believe in cultivating in-house talent,
often by identifying future school leaders during the teacher-hiring process. Others
have created and implemented their own certification programs. Well worth your
attention, whether or not you’re a CMO junkie.




