The Education Gadfly
A Weekly Bulletin of News and Analysis from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
August 28, 2008, Volume 8, Number 33
New from Fordham: Education Olympics 2008: The Games in Review. The Education Olympics (edolympics.net) are over but their spirit lives on in this user-friendly report. It presents results from recent international assessments so readers can judge for themselves how American students stack up globally. Download yours today!
This week on The Education Gadfly Show Podcast: Thelma and Louise
Contents
From Mike's Desk
Recommended Reading
Flypaper's Finest (The best from Flypaper, Fordham's blog)
The Education Gadfly Show Podcast
Short Reviews
- Class of 2008 SAT scores: Press release, data sets, and analysis
- Plotting School Choice: The Challenges of Crossing District Lines
Announcements
From Mike's Desk
What to do about mediocre teachers?
If there's one idea that unifies education analysts on the left, right, and center, it's the almost-religious belief that "improving teacher quality" is the surest way to boost student achievement. So it was music to many reformers' ears when, in 2007, McKinsey & Co. released its global report on education and argued that "the quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers." Further, wrote the authors of the report (including guru Sir Michael Barber, a former aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair), "the top-performing systems we studied recruit their teachers from the top third" of each cohort of college graduates; other systems should do the same, they insisted. It's easy to understand why so many philanthropists and policymakers have put their eggs in the "superstar teacher" basket.
Unfortunately, it's a basket with many holes. A month ago I explained why the obsession with teacher quality is myopic. For a variety of reasons, it's highly unlikely that the United States will ever draw anywhere near all of its teachers from the top third of their college classes. And it's just as unlikely that we'll succeed in redistributing teachers so that the high-flyers teach in the most disadvantaged schools. So what, I asked, is Plan B?
Some readers took my arguments as overly defeatist, so let me explain myself--and edge a little closer to Plan B. By all means, education policymakers and practitioners should do all they can to recruit talented individuals to their systems and schools. "All" would include: knocking down certification barriers that keep crack college graduates from entering the classroom; raising starting teacher salaries and offering portable retirement accounts; instituting pay-for-performance plans that might attract individuals who seek recognition and reward for a job well done; creating bonuses and salary enhancements for those willing to teach in tough neighborhoods or shortage subjects; and creating a professional work environment while cutting red tape and providing real opportunities for career advancement.
It's reasonably likely that this bundle of reforms will serve to attract and retain a fair number of a new breed of teachers, at least in a handful of cities where top-notch college graduates want to live. In Washington, New York, Denver, Seattle, the Bay Area, Chicago, Boston, and other hip localities, these strategies may well transform the teaching profession. It's no surprise that several of these cities are home to some of the most cutting-edge efforts to improve teacher quality. To the leaders in these cities I say: Godspeed.
But let's face it: most of the nation's children don't go to school in these Yuppy/Buppy Valhallas; they sit in classrooms in Cleveland and Detroit and Kansas City and eastern Kentucky and the Mississippi Delta. Inner-city and poor rural children, in particular, tend to live in communities that don't draw the latest and greatest college graduates. And while some of the reforms listed above might help in the heartland, too, at least at the margins, none is likely to yield teaching force comprised of high achievers alone. In fact, I wager that a majority of teachers in remote rural schools and mid-sized urban communities will continue to come from the middle ranks of middling colleges. Or worse. So policymakers and philanthropists might ask: what can we do to make sure that their students get a strong education too?
I don't have any surefire answers, but I see two possible solutions. First, provide tools to make these teachers more effective. And second: replace these teachers with something else entirely.
What tools might make a difference? More than anything, mediocre teachers need a solid curriculum. This is hardly a revolutionary idea, and yet it's striking how little attention curricular frameworks, standards, scopes-and-sequences and materials receive. How can we expect so-so teachers--especially rookies--to make their instruction engaging if we ask each one to invent the instructional wheel themselves? Yet, can you think of a single effort by a major foundation to improve the textbooks that teachers use every day? (I can't.) Are there any states that have provided rich, powerful, tested lesson plans and readings and quizzes and slides and everything else teachers would need to help their students reach high standards? (Assuming, of course, that the states have such standards.) The voluntary "curricular frameworks" that some states throw on their websites just don't cut it.
Maybe what's standing in the way of significant public or private investment in curricula is the lack of national standards. It makes little sense for companies to invest in developing a hodgepodge of state-specific materials. So here's another reason to push for national testing: it might lead to a national marketplace for curricular materials, which could be a boon to rank-and-file teachers.
Eventually, online technologies will inevitably make such materials more engaging than ever. Here, too, some public or private dollars could help. Imagine a website where teachers could download state-of-the-art materials for free: video-game-like simulations; digital clips of movies and animation that could be seamlessly integrated into lessons; videos of master teachers delivering the very lessons planned for the next day; regular diagnostic assessments that could pinpoint learning difficulties; etc.
But these materials will only be developed if there is a financial incentive. So why couldn't a major national foundation offer a bounty to curriculum developers that's market-based? The more times a particular curricular material is downloaded, the more its creator earns. Put a billion dollars into the system and I'd bet that we could dramatically upgrade the instruction taking place in classrooms across America--particularly if everyone is rowing toward a common standard.
Beyond giving teachers better tools, the other option is to replace teachers entirely. This isn't as outlandish as it sounds. The healthcare system figured out long ago that it didn't need MD's doing every annual physical or treating every patient with the flu. It developed "nurse practitioners" and "physicians' assistants"--individuals with plenty of training to provide basic care at a much lower salary. We should consider that model, too.
Think about poor, remote rural communities. While they struggle to attract top-notch teachers to their schools, they are full of caring adults who love kids and need jobs. But lots of these adults don't have college degrees. Maybe that's not a problem. What if every classroom had a "coach," instead of a "teacher," a person charged with keeping students on task, looking after their social and emotional needs, and providing instruction in hands-on subjects like art, music, and gym? But core academics get provided via the Internet. If companies like K12 (where I used to work) can turn everyday parents into effective teachers, why can't technology, eventually, turn other caring adults into effective instructors? Master teachers, working from the comfort of their homes in hip cities or leafy suburbs, could oversee their charges from afar.
I can't think of any national foundations experimenting with this sort of approach. Why not? Some charter laws might allow for it (though getting around No Child Left Behind's "highly qualified teachers" requirements might be a bear). Isn't this a useful avenue to at least explore?
To repeat, I don't have all the answers. Perhaps there's no magic that can turn mediocre teachers into effective instructors--or supplant them with the functional equivalent thereof. Maybe McKinsey is right that "the quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers." But if that's true, American education is in more trouble than we thought.
Email to a friend | Comments (7)
Recommended Reading
Randi's "pissed"
Political conventions, it must be said, have lost their brio. (Nielsen reports that television ratings for them have declined unremittingly since 1980.) Which is not to say nothing interesting will happen this week in Denver; indeed, something already has. On Sunday was held the "Ed Challenge for Change" event, at which such nationally prominent Democrats as Newark Mayor Cory Booker and former Colorado Governor Roy Romer convened to decry the lousy state of American public schools and challenge their party to do better. A big part of their message: reformers need not be shy about bucking the demands of teachers' unions. From the Rocky Mountain News: "‘We have been wrong in education,' Booker said of his party and its alliances with teachers unions that put adults before children. ‘It's time to get right.'" Randi Weingarten, head of the American Federation of Teachers, told Education Week that she was "really pissed" about the meeting. "This was a couple of mayors, and I very much appreciate their efforts. But they're tearing down the people who they need to lift up," she said. Adrian Fenty of Washington, D.C., and Booker are not "a couple of mayors." They're national leaders, and we couldn't be happier with the strong, reform-minded stand they took on a national stage.
"Lesson plan: Put kids over teachers," by Nancy Mitchell, Rocky Mountain News, August 25, 2008
"Union Tensions at DNC," by Michele McNeil, Campaign K-12, August 24, 2008
Email to a friend | Comments (1)
Same rift, different place
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd seems to have learned a lesson or two from the education policies of his conservative predecessor, John Howard. Rudd is moving toward a transparent accountability system that will show parents how their children are faring academically and show the state how schools that enroll similar student populations fare against one another. "There may be a bit of argy bargy on the way through but I think it's time to do this," said Rudd. He predicted a backlash from teachers' unions. But , "we're prepared to have an argument if that's necessary ... you can't simply allow our kids to be in schools which are consistently underperforming." Quite true. Seems that what's happening in Denver is happening Down Under: Liberals concerned with doing right by poor kids are finally revolting against the unions.
"Prime minister to take on unions over education reform," by Samantha Maiden, The Australian, August 28, 2008
Email to a friend | Comments (0)
A year to remember
It's been more than twelve months since Washington, D.C., Mayor Adrian Fenty named a relative unknown as the city's schools chancellor. Hard to believe, considering the tremendous amount of change that Michelle Rhee has wrought in that time. From closing failing schools, to cutting dead weight from the central offices, to hard-ball negotiations with the unions to radically revamp teacher pay, Rhee has done more in one trip around the sun than probably all of her predecessors did over their combined tenures. Equally amazing is the way she has extinguished critical flare-ups. This is due, in large part, to her ability to absorb and outlast the tirades of her opponents (and her stalwart support from Fenty). Last school year, she attended 370 community meetings, at more than a few of which parents screamed at her. An unnamed source told the Washington Post, "Those who scream the loudest were used to winning," but Rhee's position was, "We aren't going to let a vocal minority make a decision for us." And so far, she hasn't. Here's hoping for another successful year.
"Better or Worse, It's Rhee's School System Now," by V. Dion Haynes, Washington Post, August 25, 2008
Email to a friend | Comments (1)
Blame game
The story goes like this. Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev hands his successor two letters and tells him to open them when he, the successor, encounters a tough situation. The first such situation arises, the first letter is opened, and it reads, "Blame everything on me." Works like a charm. Another tough time arises, and the successor opens the second letter, which instructs him, "Sit down and write two letters." Arlene Ackerman, the new CEO of Philadelphia's schools, seems to have ambitiously torn open the first of these hypothetical envelopes (which would have been sealed by Paul Vallas, who is now running schools in New Orleans) before any crisis even had a chance to fester. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported, "Ackerman said the 167,000-student system she inherited lacked cohesion and follow-through." She told the newspaper, "We're causing our own problems by not thinking in a systemic way." She went on to call the small schools championed by Vallas "fiscal drains," to decry the functioning of the central office, and to say, in an unveiled rebuke of her predecessor, "Innovation for the sake of innovation is not something I'm interested in." Perhaps Ackerman is playing politics (there is no love lost between the City of Brotherly Love and Vallas), or perhaps she really did inherit a mess. Regardless--now she has only one letter left!
"New city schools chief outlines her to-do list," by Kristin A. Graham, Philadelphia Inquirer, August 22, 2008
Email to a friend | Comments (0)
An inky distraction
Woe to the Maori pupil in Louisiana's St. John the Baptist Parish, the school board of which is embroiled in a bit of a tattoo controversy. It all began when Principal Patricia Triche banned (visible) tattoos in her high school, East St. John. Superintendent Courtney Millet supported Triche's decision, but board member Patrick Sanders had concerns: 1) Triche did not inform the board of her decision, 2) parents are calling him to complain about the new rule, and 3) the regulation may violate students' rights. Then fellow board member Albert "Ali" Burl III piled on by noting that enforcement of the tattoo ban at East St. John would be altogether impossible (he did not explain why). But Millet was steadfast. Tattoos are signs of risky behavior, she said, and tattooed persons could contract serious blood-borne diseases. Schools, therefore, should not promote body art. But Burl chimed in again and said Millet shouldn't be making rules for public schools when her children attend private schools (again, he failed to explain his logic). And so it went. Would that the St. John the Baptist Parish district spent such energy debating how to raise student achievement!
"School board can't agree on student tattoos," by Sandra Barbier, New Orleans Times Picayune, August 22, 2008
Email to a friend | Comments (0)
Flypaper's Finest (The best from Flypaper, Fordham's blog)
Joel Klein, my personal stalker
Mike Petrilli
"I suppose we'd been warned, weeks ago, that the New York City Department of Education was watching us. So I shouldn't have been surprised by the voice mail from Commissioner Joel Klein's personal assistant (a woman with a lovely British accent) that arrived just hours after I wrote this post...." Read it here.
Email to a friend | Comments (0)
Hope for charters in Ohio
Emmy Partin
"It's frustrating to be a charter-school supporter in the Buckeye State. Charter performance in Ohio is, overall, barely equal and too often inferior to that of the district schools with which they compete...." Read it here.
Email to a friend | Comments (0)
The Education Gadfly Show Podcast
Thelma and Louise
This week, Mike and Rick discuss Denver, school choice, and tattoos. Research Minute takes a week off, and Education News of the Weird is retired for Rate That Reform! Click here to listen through our website and peruse past editions. To download the show as an mp3 to your computer, click here (no iPod required--this link will play through any music software on your computer, including Windows Media Player or RealPlayer).
Email to a friend | Comments (0)
Short Reviews
Class of 2008 SAT scores: Press release, data sets, and analysis
College Board
August 2008
The 2008 SAT data are out: average scores in reading, math, and writing went neither up nor down since last year. The College Board applauds this consistency, though, because larger numbers of minority and first-generation students took the SAT in 2008 than in 2007. Because more such students were taking the test, some say, one might have expected the scores to decline; that they didn't, smirked the College Board, is reason to celebrate. (ACT recently made a similar point about its own test.) Problem is, the actual scores of minority test-takers are not reason to celebrate. The 2008 results of both black and Hispanic students, in math, reading, and writing, were down from last year. The scores of white students, by contrast, were up. So we have a widening racial achievement gap in SAT scores. It's also clear that woefully few high school seniors are actually ready for college-level academic work. This report offers lots of other data, too, including score breakdowns by gender, family income, English language skills, and high school GPAs. The College Board also provides state reports, but in only 21 states plus the District of Columbia do 50 percent or more of the kids take this test. You can find it all here.
Email to a friend | Comments (0)
Plotting School Choice: The Challenges of Crossing District Lines
Erin Dillon
Education Sector
August 2008
This report wants to know how many students would benefit from increased public-school choice, especially the kind that involves crossing the border between districts. Not too many, it finds. School capacity and driving distances limit options, even when students are permitted to cross district lines. The report also notes that, despite 46 states having some type of open-enrollment law, and 42 with inter-district choice, 80 to 90 percent of students in low-performing schools remain in them. Author Erin Dillon used Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping technology to discover high-performing schools within a 20-minute driving radius of a low-performing school. She assumed that the high-performing "receiving schools" could increase their capacity by 10 percent to accommodate transferring students. These limiting assumptions--20 minutes and 10 percent capacity--have been criticized as too conservative but Dillon herself explains that once travel time is expanded beyond 20 minutes, increased access and subsequent competition for spots in receiving schools negates any benefit. More interesting is how Dillon identifies her low- and high-performing schools. She rates them on a 1 to 5 scale, but labels them "high" and "low" performing based on how they compare to their neighboring schools, rather than on their absolute scores. To be labeled high-performing, a school has to be 2 quintiles above its low-performing counterpart; in other words, a school that by absolute standards is mediocre could be termed high-performing in Dillon's study. Seems reasonable. The overall lesson, though, is this: it's important to have other options, such as vouchers and charter schools, to supplement public-school choice. A copy can be found here.
Email to a friend | Comments (1)
Announcements
A few spaces left
On Wednesday, September 3rd, from 4 to 5 p.m., the Fordham Institute will host a discussion of David Whitman's fresh and exciting book, Sweating the Small Stuff: Inner-City Schools and the New Paternalism. The Washington Post's Jay Mathews will offer comments (no doubt to express his disagreement with the "paternalism" label), as will SEED's principal, Charles Adams. On offer will be drinks, snacks and good conversation. Want to come? RSVP by sending an email to rsvp@edexcellence.net.
Email to a friend | Comments (0)
About Us
The Education Gadfly is published weekly (ordinarily on Thursdays), with occasional breaks, by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Regular contributors include Amy Fagan, Chester E. Finn, Jr., Kyle Kennedy, Mickey Muldoon, Jamie Davies O’Leary, Eric Osberg, Stafford Palmieri, Emmy Partin, Michael J. Petrilli, Laura Elizabeth Pohl, Terry Ryan, Janie Scull, Saul Spady, and Amber Winkler. Have something to say? Email us at thegadfly@edexcellence.net. Would you like to be spared from the Gadfly? Email thegadfly@edexcellence.net with “unsubscribe gadfly” in the text of your message. You are welcome to forward Gadfly to others, and from our website you can also email individual articles. If you have been forwarded a copy of Gadfly and would like to subscribe, you may either email thegadfly@edexcellence.net with “subscribe gadfly” in the text of the message or sign up online here.
The Thomas B. Fordham Institute is a nonprofit organization that conducts research, issues publications, and directs action projects in elementary and secondary education reform at the national level and in Ohio, with a special emphasis on our hometown of Dayton. (For Ohio news, check out our Ohio Education Gadfly, published bi-weekly, ordinarily on Wednesdays.) The Institute is neither connected with nor sponsored by Fordham University.
