Education in the P.R.C.: A layer cake baked from the top down

Amber M. Winkler, Ph.D. / November 3, 2011

It’s no secret that the manner in which U.S. schools are organized, overseen, and managed is an overlapping colossal mess—a “marble cake” of governance, with the relationships among federal, state, and local policies (not to mention building- and classroom-level decisions) oscillating between redundant and contradictory. This not only makes public education exceptionally hard to reform; it also lays open that system to innumerable adult interest groups—school boards, district and school leaders, teacher unions, community and business groups, parents, and so on—that manage to pursue their own ends while blaming and scapegoating others for whatever doesn’t work.

	Despite a proclaimed devolution of power to local authorities in the 1980s, in this realm as in so many others, China remains a tightly hierarchical society.

Many see this state of play as a consequence of our messy democracy. But, even if our system were more efficient or more coherent under a centralized regime, would it lead to higher student achievement? And what would be the trade-offs of such a shift? During a recent sojourn to the land of Confucius (I was traveling as a senior fellow with the Global Education Policy Fellowship Program), I sought to find out.

What does education “federalism” looks like in communist China? What powers and/or decision making does Beijing reserve for itself in this realm and what powers are held by provinces,

» Continued

Education in the P.R.C.: A layer cake baked from the top down

What???s at stake in ESEA debate? Not much

Michael J. Petrilli / November 3, 2011

Forget Occupy Wall Street. Liberal reformers and prominent editorial pages are steaming mad about the supposedly weak approach to accountability that the Harkin-Enzi ESEA-update bill takes—in comparison to current law and the Administration’s waiver plan. But are they right to be so hot and bothered?

Let’s start by examining the language that’s causing the hullabaloo—the main options on the table today when it comes to determining which schools qualify for interventions:

• The Administration’s waiver package. In order to opt-out of ESEA’s Adequate Yearly Progress metric, states must propose accountability systems that “set new ambitious but achievable [Annual Measurable Objectives] in at least reading/language arts and mathematics for the State and all LEAs, schools, and subgroups.” In other words, states must set a goal for each year in terms of the percentage of students reaching the “proficient” standard on the state test. States must also identify “Title I schools with the greatest achievement gaps, or in which subgroups are furthest behind.”

• The Harkin-Enzi bill (as passed out of committee). Under this version of ESEA, states would have to develop accountability systems that expect “the continuous improvement of all public schools in the State in the academic achievement and outcomes of all students, including… subgroups.”

• The Lamar Alexander-Johnny Isakson bill. Under this bill introduced by several Senate Republicans, states would have to establish “a system of identifying and differentiating among all public elementary schools and secondary schools in the State based on student academic achievement and any other factors determined appropriate by the State [that] also takes into account achievement gaps…and overall performance of

  » Continued

  ---

  What???s at stake in ESEA debate? Not much

No Malthusian crash for the teacher population

Chris Tessone / November 3, 2011

Who's afraid of the big bad
pension-reform wolf?
(Photo by Wayne NoffSinger)

Doomsday projections aside, NCTQ found in a recent survey that layoffs in large urban districts were modest: Over the past two years, only 2.5 percent (on average) of the teaching staff at the seventy-five large urban districts they surveyed were let go. Half of the participating districts saw no forced layoffs at all. (Many districts decreased staff size simply through teacher attrition.) This falls in stark contrast to the rhetoric of a “new normal” pushed out from the White House: Remember its forewarnings of 280,000 teacher layoffs this year alone? The story of how cities avoided layoffs is interesting: A large percentage cut their central-office workforce. Good. But more districts cut class time or school days than reduced workers’ benefits. In fact, only 7 percent of surveyed districts in 2011-12 dared mess with teacher benefits. These data could bolster the case of reformers like Scott Walker who argue that state policy should tackle runaway growth in benefits because school boards and administrators will not. Clearly only a tiny minority of districts were willing to touch these areas of their budget. So lay off the predictions, Nostr-Obama.

This piece was originally published (in a slightly different form) on Fordham’s Flypaper blog. To subscribe to Flypaper, click here.

No Malthusian crash for the teacher population

Give the people what they want

November 3, 2011

 

Charters rise the school-performance
tide (Photo by Mike Haller)

Despite all the good she’s done—her Harlem Success Academy 1 ranks in the top percentile of schools in New York State, and the others in the network are no slouches—Eva Moskowitz has earned herself some fierce opponents among Gotham’s upper-middle class. How come? First, a year ago, she sought to locate one of her schools on the Upper West Side—only to see hordes of public-school parents freak out at the thought of their schools competing with a new charter for space, money, and kids. (After some effort, Moskowitz opened the school this fall.) Now she’s back for a rematch, this time in the upscale urban hamlet of Brooklyn’s Cobble Hill. Why the focus on more-affluent locales? As Moscowitz has explained, “middle-class families need options, too.” (The political heft that middle-class folks could provide to the charter movement isn’t a bad reason, either, especially as the majority of her schools are in lower-income neighborhoods.) Voicing an agenda of excellence for all, Moskowitz is finding support from parents who aren’t willing to wait for their zoned schools to improve—and facing opposition from those who see her charters as siphoning resources (and education-minded families) away from the project of improving district schools. There is much to be

» Continued

---

Give the people what they want

» Continued The Nation???s Report Card 2011: Reading and Mathematics Strategic Pay Reform: A Student Outcomes-Based Evaluation of Denver???s ProComp Teacher Pay Initiative Laura Johnson / November 3, 2011 There is much opposition against teacher merit-pay programs today. But one such venture stands largely outside that debate: Denver’s ProComp program enjoys teacher-union support and is partially funded by a voter-approved tax. ProComp offers individual and school-based incentives to participants based on both input measures (acquisition of higher degrees, etc.) and output measures (student performance and progress, etc.). Under the ProComp contract, new teachers are automatically ushered into the program—which offers rewards for a variety of input- and output-based achievements, including advanced degrees, higher than expected student test scores, and working in hard to staff schools—while veterans must volunteer, creating unique conditions for research. Five years into the program (which enrolls 80 percent of DPS teachers), Dan Goldhaber and Joe Walch offer some perspective on its effectiveness. Their findings are promising, but with caveat (notably because of the convoluted statistics done to ascertain results). The findings? Student achievement did increase (notably at the secondary level in reading) since implementing ProComp, and students of participating teachers fared better than those not in the program. That said, even veteran teachers not partaking in ProComp saw positive residual effects from the system. Yet, the researchers also found that advanced-degree or professional-development bonuses had little effect on student achievement. The upshot? Merit-pay programs can lead to better results—if designed and implemented thoughtfully. Dan Goldhaber and Joe Walch, “Strategic Pay Reform: A Student Outcomes-Based Evaluation of Denver’s ProComp Teacher Pay Initiative.” (Seattle, WA: Center for Education Data & Research, 2011). » Continued Strategic Pay Reform: A Student Outcomes-Based Evaluation of Denver???s ProComp Teacher Pay Initiative Don???t Count Us Out: How an Overreliance on Accountability Could Undermine the Public???s Confidence in Schools, Business, Government, and More Tyson Eberhardt / November 3, 2011 So many institutions—from Congress and Wall Street to public schools and HMOs—have lost the nation’s confidence: “Citizens don’t consider many institutions…to be either responsive or effective,” write the authors of this Public Agenda/Kettering Foundation report. This, despite much effort on the part of organizational leaders to provide transparent data to the public. Why? According to the report, it’s because the public and those leaders don’t agree on the fundamental nature of “accountability.” While elites tend to see accountability as transparently holding organizations to objective, quantifiable standards, the public views it, more opaquely, as a moral issue. Pervasive irresponsibility causes a lack of accountability, regardless of measurable results. This disconnect, the report argues, cripples policy. To remedy it, leaders need to listen to and empathize with the public’s concerns, rather than unilaterally choose technical solutions, the authors argue. To buttress this point, the report authors draw from examples in education, housing, and health care. (On the education front, they showcase school closures as a prime time for enhanced communication.) Still, though they tout communication’s virtues, the authors remind that it is not the same as consensus: Leaders must hear all opinions. But the ultimate decision-making power must rest in their hands. The public is accountable for remembering that. Jean Johnson, Jonathan Rochkind, and Samantha DuPont, Don’t Count Us Out: How an Overreliance on Accountability Could Undermine the Public’s Confidence in Schools, Business, Government, and More. (New York, NY: Public Agenda; Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation, October 2011). » Continued Don???t Count Us Out: How an Overreliance on Accountability Could Undermine the Public???s Confidence in Schools, Business, Government, and More 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