« The Upper West Side Relief Act of 2008 (Or: More on Gifted Admissions in NYC) | Main | Matrix Algebra Miscellany »

skoolboy on: The Status of the Status Quo in Education Policy

Over at The Quick and the Ed, one of the many house organs of Education Sector, Kevin Carey is conducting a serial monologue belittling eduwonkette as an “alleged social scientist.” “Alleged”? Yeah, I’ll allege it – eduwonkette is a social scientist. It’s not an epithet, as much as Carey might believe; to some of us, it’s a way of life.

What’s the latest bee in Carey’s bonnet? It’s eduwonkette’s contention that particular value-added assessment systems for evaluating teacher performance are not ready for prime time. Carey views the claim that a particular policy alternative has identifiable flaws as tantamount to embracing a status quo that is demonstrably flawed. Public education clearly isn’t working, he argues. Therefore, any policy alternative to the status quo is to be preferred. Anyone who raises caveats about any kind of change is just an apologist for the status quo, a weasel, and probably a bed-wetter too.

The problem, Carey opines, is that social scientists such as eduwonkette – wait a minute, is she a social scientist or not? – have unrealistic standards for evaluating policy alternatives. “The standard in public policy isn't 95%,” he writes, “ it's whatever is most likely to be best: 51%. “ I’m not sure what the 95% refers to here, but most policy analysts I know are in the business of trying to recommend a policy alternative based on multiple criteria: the likely consequences of the alternative for various desirable outcomes; its cost; its feasibility and sustainability; its consistency with public values; and the likelihood of successful implementation. The hard reality is that there often isn’t a very strong evidence base for making these judgments, and policy analysts have to consider a range of possible outcomes along these criteria (a confidence interval that expresses the uncertainty about what might happen), and confront the tradeoffs, because invariably no single policy alternative looks best across all of these criteria. Simply having a good big idea—choice, accountability, charters, vouchers, whatever—isn’t enough to carry the day, because the devil of public policy is in the details. The world of policy analysis is littered with examples of good ideas that were implemented poorly, and thus did not have the desired effects—even though they were very costly initiatives.

For this reason, scholars of policy analysis (e.g., Eugene Bardach of the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC-Berkeley) almost always recommend considering allowing present trends to continue undisturbed as one of a set of policy alternatives intended to address a problem condition. Enacting an alternative that costs more than the current approach and doesn’t work is arguably worse than the status quo.

As for value-added assessment systems for evaluating teacher performance, we need to consider particular policy alternatives to the status quo in particular settings, not the big idea of value-added assessment for evaluating teacher performance (which both eduwonkette and I agree is promising.) If I can return to the New York City case which eduwonkette has discussed at length, the one new issue with regard to policy analysis that I’d like to introduce is feasibility and sustainability. It’s my opinion—and I’m not a lawyer, just an alleged social scientist—that the New York City approach, which defines 50% of a particular teacher’s effectiveness on the basis of how that teacher’s students do in other teachers’ classes over which the teacher has no control, would not survive a legal challenge. Other policy analysts might disagree, and might therefore be more favorably disposed towards this particular alternative. Either way, though, good policy analysis considers feasibility and sustainability as important criteria in evaluating policy alternatives.

As always, you said it better than I could have – but let me add one more point.

There are many diseases for which we have no cure. In the absence of a new drug or procedure, patients with these diseases may die. Nonetheless, for a drug to be approved by the FDA, the manufacturer must demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the drug through clinical trials. We take these precautions, even in the face of the potential loss of life, because we understand that new and unproven treatments can inflict great damage on patients. Carey ignores this potential for harm (to students, teachers, and the profession), and contends that any option is undeniably better than the status quo.

But we can make matters much worse. Given NYC’s constraints, there is a non-trivial chance of wrongly labeling teachers as “good” or “bad” – and, I would argue, a much larger chance of misclassifying teachers than we face at present.

Alleged policy analyst Kevin Carey's post demonstrates a shocking lack of understanding about actual policy analysis.

In a nutshell: KC thinks a policy should be adopted as long as there is a 51% chance that outcomes under the new policy will be better than existing outcomes (what KC shrewdly refers to as the "current terrible system").

In other words, **a coin flip** is sufficient for good decisionmaking. (KC has clearly taken a statistics course, as he seems to be familiar with the term "null hypothesis," so he should also know that a 51% chance of success is tantamount to a coin flip).

This logic is staggeringly bad. Should a decision about invasion of Iraq be based on a 51% chance of better outcomes post-invasion? Should a sick patient be comfortable with a treatment that improves outcomes in 51% of cases? (Never mind that it may instantly kill the other 49%).

Putting aside the obviously low bar KC has set for good decisionmaking, he ignores countless considerations that real policymakers actually must take into account. I'll give two examples.

(1) downside risk - expected outcomes ignore variation, and the likelihood of very bad events (or on the other side, very good events).

(2) opportunity cost - in the real world, making one policy choice precludes making another. In his haste, KC appears to be ready to foresake all policy alternatives in order to adopt his 51% plan. But in reality, there is often a menu of possible alternatives, each with their own ratio of benefits to costs to consider.

In the specific case of assessing teachers using value-added, KC appears to be comfortable with value-added assessment "getting it right" 51 percent of the time. Turning back to the real world, what employee would be comfortable with a reward system that is demonstrated to accurately detect teaching success 51% of the time? A coin flip would be as trustworthy, and a heck of lot cheaper.

Being right 51% of the time may be a sufficiently high bar at the Education Sector, but the rest of us should expect a lot more of our policymakers.

Normally I'd do this on our blog, but we've got a new report out today.

I have nothing against social scientists, as anyone who knows me could tell you. You can check if you like, because, unlike the author of and commenters on this blog, I'm not in the habit of hurling petty insults from behind a veil of anonymity. When I say something, people know who I am and where I'm coming from.

It's silly to say that I prefer any alternative to the status quo. The post says, quote "Neither of those alternatives deserves any special consideration." I'm not sure how to be more clear than that.

Eduwonkette wonders "what the 95% refers to." It refers to the generally accepted standard for statistical significance as, again, the post clearly says. If you're having trouble reading the blog, let me know, I'll see if our Web people can changed the font.

Stats prof (if that's what you actually are) says that "KC thinks a policy should be adopted as long as there is a 51% chance that outcomes under the new policy will be better than existing outcomes." Yes, that's what I think, after taking the risks and rewards of both alternatives into account. Why do you prefer 49%?

Hi Kevin, Thanks for coming over to comment. skoolboy's question was not about the meaning of statistical significance, but rather about how this applies to value-added - i.e. when evaluating teachers for tenure, should we be happy with a 51% chance of assigning teachers to the correct category?

Surely you are not comfortable with a system, as commenter Stat Prof said, that labels a "good" teacher as a "bad" one 49 percent of the time?

Kevin, kind of you to drop into a forum where we can actually exchange ideas. Rather than hurling insults at each other, can we focus on a couple of ideas? Here are a couple of questions I'd like to know your stance on. (1) When thinking about the ways in which government might respond to problem conditions, do you think policy analysts should consider a set of policy alternatives? Might one alternative be to let present trends considered undisturbed? (2) What evaluative criteria should policy alternatives be held up to in order to judge the projected outcomes of a policy alternative? Should policy analysts consider legality, political acceptability, ease of implementation and sustainability along with criteria such as efficiency and equity? What about possible unintended consequences of implementing a policy alternative? Are they relevant as well?

Whoops -- that was meant to be "let present trends continue undisturbed" in the post above.

I have a question for Skoolboy and Eduwonkette. The post suggests you both think value-added assessment of individual teacher effectiveness is ‘promising’. Yet, you’ve identified many measurement issues that don’t seem resolvable soon, saying the method is not ready for ‘prime time’. Plus, most schools won’t have decent value added data for many years to come. Aren’t you being kind of theoretical?

I would definitely not support the use of a measure with only a 51% chance of identifying a teacher correctly. When I say 51% (and of course, it's better to be more sure than this), I'm referring to the policy decision to integrate value-added data into the tenure process.

Per skoolboy's questions: that mostly makes sense to me. Of course the status quo should be given due consideration, along with ideas like legality, implementation costs, possible unintended consequences, etc. I'd put "political acceptability" in a different category, however, that can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'm not sure why Larry Mishel thinks most schools won't have decent value added data for "many years to come," particularly now with annual testing in grades 3-8. Most school's DON'T have decent value added data, but that's mostly because they haven't tried to get it (or have been prevented from doing so.)

Larry, may I ask a further question before I respond? Too often value-added assessment of individual teacher effectiveness can be viewed as a solution in search of a problem. What specific problem condition do you view VAA as a possible solution to? Is it the failure of districts to retain effective teachers? The inability of districts to weed out ineffective teachers during their probationary period? Something else?

The reason I am asking is that the flaws in the technology of VAA may be more or less problematic, depending on the specific problem condition that VAA is intended to address. If, for example, a particular VAA system were effective at distinguishing the bottom 10-20% of teachers from the rest, but not very good at making distinctions among the top 80%, it might be useful for weeding out, but not for rewarding particularly effective teachers.

In response to Kevin, I don't think schools will have databases for computing value added for years to come because most schools do not now maintain student longitudinal data. It is clearly possible to do so but is neither easy nor inexpensive. To use VA to assess individual teachers you would also need to know test scores at the beginning and end of each school year and I imagine that will not be a widespread practice soon. I support efforts to build such data but note that school system capacity for developing this data infrastructure is quite varied. We won’t get anywhere near being able to measure graduation rates properly unless we do develop such longitudinal data and even then it will be very difficult. Kevin, how many years do you think it would take for a majority of students to be in school districts that have accurate student longitudinal data sufficient for measuring value-added assessments of individual teachers?

Skoolboy, I guess I’d ask you what you think it may be ‘promising’ for? I think the big issue is whether VA can identify individual teacher effectiveness for purposes of ‘pay for performance’. Although most plans would probably involve a small minority, let’s say we wanted to distinguish: the top 10%; the next 15%; and, the next 20%, so that each group could be given a different ‘merit’ pay increase. Do we have statistical methods that could identify which teachers fell into which group such that teachers would feel they were evaluated fairly (and would actually be assigned with ‘reasonable’ accuracy, with any definition of ‘reasonable’ you choose to offer?).

Kevin, while I can't speak for Larry, I too agree that many schools won't have usable value-added data for some years. And there are a host of reasons for that. For starters, just because there's annual testing, doesn't mean the test is usable, due both to what the test measures, as well as when the test occurs which is where a lot of value-added models get tripped up: if the test is given in October or November, how do you determine which teacher is responsible for the growth (or lack of), and how do you adjust for whatever may have been lost over the summer? The other issue is, just because there are tests (and assuming you can use them for value-added) does the district have the database required for connecting the student, the score, and the teacher? For many districts, the answer to that is a resounding no. That often is based on the fact that because of historical confidentiality concerns, all these databases were created independently with no intention of having them linked.

And for Larry, yes, I think we're being rather theoretical now - and I think that's the point. The pushback we're hearing regarding NYC's design is that it's based on an untested system of being able to determine one teacher's capacity. If NYC can pilot a system and can show that it works, then we can have a different discussion, based on a real system that has been tested in a real environment (and has figured out how to "fix" all the issues with any given value-added system).

And while I'm not an alleged social scientist, I do have direct experience assisting folks who are trying to get value-added systems up and running. And they've been working on it for some years with substantial external funding.

Not only will many schools not have the types of longitudinal data available, but many places won't have tests with the correct psychometric properties necessary to conduct accurate value-added model.

When asked whether the types of analysis done with North Carolina data could be done in Texas, Dan Goldhaber was highly skeptical since the Texas tests were not constructed with value-added analyses in mind. So, even if the data systems to track scores were in place, you have to have the right tests. Further, at the secondary level, you have to have a data system that identifies when students enter and leave a school and whether students change teachers mid-year (one teacher for Alg Ia and another teacher for Alg Ib).

Moreover, many states are going to end-of-course tests since they provide a better measure of the true curriculum, yet this prohibits a true value-added measure (although Sunny Ladd and others have come up with a possible solution, but have yet to fully test it out).

Sorry Larry, you were posting while I was typing, and I think I tripped over your answer.

I also agree that using VA for measuring performance is untested. As in we don't know how to do it yet. In addition, using VA as one of multiple measurements is also untested (which I think is the only way any of these systems will see the light of day). Assuming you can identify which teacher are doing better than others in VA (according to some test score) you still need to answer the question of why, which means taking into account other assessments like classroom observations (which can get very expensive, and there's really only a handful that have been shown to be valid and reliable).

(I should be preparing for class, but...) Larry, I'm glad you clarified what you see as the application of individual-teacher VAA. I would say that this approach is probably most promising when the resulting ratings/groupings of teachers do not need to be very precise. Distinguishing the upper and lower tails of the distribution from the large number of teachers in the middle strikes me as more feasible than establishing fine divisions among groups of teachers, given what we know about the uncertainty of VAA estimates of teacher effects on standardized test scores over a single year or even multiple years. I'm not sure that we'll ever get to the level of precision that you aspire to for pay-for-performance.

Beyond this, I really can't imagine individual-teacher VAA that doesn't rely on reliable fall and spring measures that are designed to measure growth. (Maybe annual fall-fall or spring-spring testing could work, if the summers could be accounted for appropriately, but I haven't seen persuasive examples of this yet.) One of the feasibility issues is that in many districts, this would require doubling the number of standardized tests to be administered, and thereby sharply increasing the cost of testing. Costs are certainly an appropriate criterion to consider in evaluating policy alternatives, and a costly policy that only improves on existing measures slightly might not be a defensible alternative.

(And I should be finishing this paper!), so will add one potential use of value-added that has not been mentioned in response to Larry's question. If we believe that teachers can improve - and I do - then we might use value-added measures to target professional development, instructional coaches, etc, and to identify high-performing teachers to serve as mentors, coaches, etc. In this case, precision is still important from a cost-effectiveness (and fairness) standpoint, but not as crucial as when teachers' jobs and compensation are at stake. I'll return later with a finished paper and will have more to say!

I think skoolboy asks a good question when he ask what problem VAA attempts to solve. Going out on a limb, I would suggest that there are two problems. One is the queasiness with regard to evaluating teacher ability/performance using qualitative measures, by an administrator who has to "live with" that teacher for the next year. The second is the demand from teachers than any evaluation be tightly controlled in order to avoid any possibility of bias against any individual teacher.

Business or other workplaces may or may not provide workable examples of evaluation in practice, but there certainly is a fair amount of management theory on the subject. I have actually seen both good and bad evaluation outside of education. Some of the best had very little in the way of process requirements. Some of the worst simply ignored all of the process supports.

I don't object to VAA being stirred into the pot, along with some other imperfect measures that I think should be considered (parent and student surveys, for instance, recurring discipline problems for another). A good administrator, keeping in mind the educational goals of the institution, should review any "evidence" with the teacher during an annual review--particularly looking back over several years to pick up patterns--and use it as the basis for planning improvement.

Oops, sorry, I slipped off into nirvana. But I do think it's important to keep in mind the "ideal"

Reading KC's juvenile and thought-free response ("I'll see if our web people can change the font", "if that's what you actually are", etc.)--which incidentally did not respond to one substantive point I made--let me just say it's truly frightening that this is what represents one of our most influential education policy outfits.

Just to add to eduwonkette's list of proposed uses: using VA data to determine the effectiveness of a certain kind of teacher preparation. Data could be used not only for effectiveness (as in University X graduates do better than Alt. Cert. Program Y completers, which is a significant policy consideration a la Kevin Carey) but could also drive teacher preparation institutions to make adjustments to their programs of study.

Kevin Carey did not address one of the important defects of the NYC VAA approach. The students take the test in January each year. Teachers will be evaluated based on gains made in four months in their classroom and four months in some other teacher's classroom. This is not a good approach. As eduwonkette and/or skoolboy pointed out, the only way VAA makes sense is if the tests are administered in September and again at the end of the school year. But that is not what NYC is doing.

Ed Sector's own Benwood study demonstrates the need for caution in trying to use value added test data to evaluate teachers. In Benwood, teachers were awarded up to $5,000 for their VA scores. But there were two critical points about the use of VA scores that were glossed over in the paper.

First, despite reporting strong consistent gains on reading tests, the study rejected the use of reading VA scores to measure the impact of the intervention. The VA reading data showed no differences at all, but Ed Sector explained, "The measurable effect of teachers on student reading achievement is generally smaller than it is for student math achievement." Is this always true or just in Benwood? Are reading teachers rewarded differently when it comes to bonuses because of this? What should we tell reading specialists? To be more specific, in Benwood, were VA reading scores used in the calculation of the merit pay bonuses? If so, should they have been? (One assumes Ed Sector would say, "no," as they did in their own study.)

Second, for each year of the study, previous value added scores were calculated again and the results were different. "Because there were multiple teacher effectiveness estimates for any given teacher-subject-grade-year, it was necessary to choose among those estimates." Imagine if, every year, they recalculated your SAT score and each year it was different. Would you be concerned? Who would get to choose which one was the right one? To be more specific, in Benwood, would the recalculated VA scores have resulted in different bonus awards (recipients or size of award)? If so, were the real teachers who participated in this real program ever notified?

There is much to be learned from Benwood. Ed Sector could do the educational research and educational policy communities a great favor by digging a bit deeper into the questions it has raised in its initial report.

From a parent perspective--how would VAA evaluations work when teachers work closely as a team? For example, my daughter's grade combines three classes for flexible reading groups, and she has a different math teacher than her home teacher.

It seems to me that using data to improve instruction is much more helpful than evaluations.

EduDiva, you bring up an additional challenge for VAA that I had forgotten. And it's one that as far as I know, none of the VAA gurus has figured out.

Surely you are not comfortable with a system, as commenter Stat Prof said, that labels a "good" teacher as a "bad" one 49 percent of the time?

I think this gets to the crux of policy issue that's being ignored, which is that in real life situations, change comes at a cost.

Imagine you had a widget-sorting algorithm which looked at widgets and decided whether or not they were defective, and made the correct choice 51% of the time. The remaining 49% it either kept a defective widget, or tossed out a perfectly good one.

If you, the widget manufacturer, used this algorithm on your widget output you'd have a slightly higher percentage of good widgets in your sorted widgets compared to your unsorted widgets. However, the improvement would be small, and the number of perfectly good widgets tossed out would be (very) high. I doubt any rational manufacturer would settle for a quality control protocol that tossed out nearly half of the good widgets he produced.

Similarly, a school district that changed reading programs (or teacher evaluation methods) every time there seemed to be a 51% chance that the new one would be better would waste a lot of money on materials and training, have a lot of burned out teachers, and quite possibly a lot of confused kids.

Education reformer may view school districts as change-resistant dinosaurs, but there are plenty of people working in education who seem the tendency to jump on every new fad as a major impediment to real improvement.

Rachel, your example(s) remind me of when Praxis was first coming out, and there were a handful of states who signed on to it as their certification test of choice even before ETS had concluded all their validity tests. I think that's the piece that Kevin is missing: let's see if this thing can actually work before we make it the rule.

Funny how so many people fully embrace VAA but have no earthly idea about the statistical and psychometric properties that need to be in place before it could actually work well. Kevin seems to fit this bill.

If all this angst over VAM is around increasing effective teaching--and I certainly hope it is--there are better ways to evaluate and improve teaching than sorting folks into quintiles based on test scores. Brian Jacob and Lars Lefgren wrote a piece for "Education Next" a couple of years ago asserting that principals were already good at identifying the top layer of teacher quality and the very worst teachers, but not so adept at sorting out quartiles 2 through 4.

Why would we spend a significant chunk of scarce resources on expensive data tracking systems to sort (with questionable accuracy) the great middle? Because hacking off the bottom 20% would shuffle the remaining teachers, some of whom would sink and some of whom would rise in the hierarchy, depending on who came in to replace them? This is lunacy.

Instead of focusing on bad teachers, perhaps we should dedicate resources to figuring out what effective teaching looks like, and trying to nurture and replicate it. Effective teaching, not effective teachers--yeah, that's the ticket.

I'd be interested in seeing some of you folks comment on the emerging research that indicates (to me) that we should give this more thought before implementing it willy-nilly all over the country:
- changing the VA model changes the VA results
- the same teacher can be rated as an excellent or a poor teacher, in the same subject, looking at different classes of students
- the same teacher can be rated as an excellent teacher one year and very poor the next...and so on
The lack of serious attention to studying VA before its implemented is kind of frightening. What's a policy analyst for, anyhow?

I don't know that VA was developed for the purpose of evaluating (and rewarding or getting rid of) teachers. I believe that it is least valid at the classroom level--for the many reasons cited above (impact of multiple teachers, timing of testing, etc). But it does respond to something that teachers have been complaining about with regard to point in time testing--which is that it measures growth.

There is sort of a be careful what you wish for component here. Now there is a tool to measure growth--can you do anything helpful with it? Are we wiser now than we were before? Do we apply this same scrutiny to all of the tools that we use to evaluate students (classroom tests, grades, homework completion, etc).

I'm all for science and validity and all that. But I am suspicious when it is criteria only selectively applied.

For what it's worth, without knowledge of this debate, I address the same issue in my "Letter From" in edbizbuzz of today (April 23)"Information Systems, Accountability and Adaptive Management" http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/edbizbuzz/2008/04/the_letter_from_information_sy.html
It's also a podcast at www.siiwonline.libsyn.com

It's also interestingm in going through all the thoughtful comments above, that no one questions the definition of reading involved in the typical reading test. In "In Schools We Trust" (a book I wrote!) I offer a number of examples of items typically found on such tests that clearly are responsive to something different than reading ability. At best there is probably a rough correlation between good reading test scores and good reading abilities and habits. Whether that reflects the quality of the test or other extraneous factors is another matter.

Not only do we have insufficient tests of something as presumably clearcut as "reading", but we have none on the more significant intellectually sound habits of heart and mind fundamental to being a well-educated member of society. The capacity to confront a phenomenon of interest in ways that help one best understand it, and then to make use of the knowledge acquired is surely more importnt than being able to guess the one out of four "best answer".

Try this exercise on your own parenting? How would you judge which of your x children you've "added most value to"?????

Deborah, good point, and I guess I've been discussing value-added long enough now that I often forget that key point: the assumption that the tests used in any VAA are actually measuring what they are supposed to measure. Or, even more importantly, are they measuring what the schools (dare I say, teachers) think is important. In many cases, I've seen places begin with the assumption that there isn't anything they can do about the test, so how can they use it for their purposes - and VAA may be a step in that direction. Kind of along the lines of assuming that this realm of accountability isn't going anywhere, so we should make the best of it. Which often isn't the best place to start.

I'm not sure this is still a "live" debate, but readers may be interested in my observations on it at edbizbuzz.

To mix metaphors, there's a way to square this circle before the unstoppable force hits the immovable object.

See: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/edbizbuzz/2008/05/the_letter_from_why_cant_we_al.html

Comments are now closed for this post.


Recent Comments

  • Marc Dean Millot: I'm not sure this is still a "live" debate, but read more
  • Mark Johnson-Lewis: Deborah, good point, and I guess I've been discussing value-added read more
  • deborah Meier: It's also interestingm in going through all the thoughtful comments read more
  • Marc Dean Millot: For what it's worth, without knowledge of this debate, I read more
  • Margo/Mom: I don't know that VA was developed for the purpose read more




Technorati search

» Blogs that link here


8th grade retention
Fordham Foundation
The New Teacher Project
Tim Daly
absent teacher reserve
absent teacher reserve

accountability in Texas
accountability systems in education
achievement gap
achievement gap in New York City
acting white
AERA annual meetings
AERA conference
Alexander Russo
Algebra II
American Association of University Women
American Education Research Associatio
American Education Research Association
American Educational Research Journal
American Federation of Teachers
Andrew Ho
Art Siebens
Baltimore City Public Schools
Barack Obama
Bill Ayers
black-white achievement gap
books on educational research
boy crisis
brain-based education
Brian Jacob
bubble kids
Building on the Basics
Cambridge Education
carnival of education
Caroline Hoxby
Caroline Hoxby charter schools
cell phone plan
charter schools
Checker Finn
Chicago shooting
Chicago violence
Chris Cerf
class size
Coby Loup
college access
cool people you should know
credit recovery
curriculum narrowing
Dan Willingham
data driven
data-driven decision making
data-driven decision-making
David Cantor
Dean Millot
demographics of schoolchildren
Department of Assessment and Accountability
Department of Education budget
Diplomas Count
disadvantages of elite education
do schools matter
Doug Ready
Doug Staiger
dropout factories
dropout rate
education books
education policy
education policy thinktanks
educational equity
educational research
educational triage
effects of neighborhoods on education
effects of No Child Left Behind
effects of schools
effects of Teach for America
elite education
Everyday Antiracism
excessed teachers
exit exams
experienced teachers
Fordham and Ogbu
Fordham Foundation
Frederick Douglass High School
Gates Foundation
gender and education
gender and math
gender and science and mathematics
gifted and talented
gifted and talented admissions
gifted and talented program
gifted and talented programs in New York City
girls and math
good schools
graduate student union
graduation rate
graduation rates
guns in Chicago
health benefits for teachers
High Achievers
high school
high school dropouts
high school exit exams
high school graduates
high school graduation rate
high-stakes testing
high-stakes tests and science
higher ed
higher education
highly effective teachers
Houston Independent School District
how to choose a school
incentives in education
Institute for Education Sciences
is teaching a profession?
is the No Child Left Behind Act working
Jay Greene
Jim Liebman
Joel Klein
John Merrow
Jonah Rockoff
Kevin Carey
KIPP and boys
KIPP and gender
Lake Woebegon
Lars Lefgren
leaving teaching
Leonard Sax
Liam Julian

Marcus Winters
math achievement for girls
meaning of high school diploma
Mica Pollock
Michael Bloomberg
Michelle Rhee
Michelle Rhee teacher contract
Mike Bloomberg
Mike Klonsky
Mike Petrilli
narrowing the curriculum
National Center for Education Statistics Condition of Education
new teachers
New York City
New York City bonuses for principals
New York City budget
New York City budget cuts
New York City Budget cuts
New York City Department of Education
New York City Department of Education Truth Squad
New York City ELA and Math Results 2008
New York City gifted and talented
New York City Progress Report
New York City Quality Review
New York City school budget cuts
New York City school closing
New York City schools
New York City small schools
New York City social promotion
New York City teacher experiment
New York City teacher salaries
New York City teacher tenure
New York City Test scores 2008
New York City value-added
New York State ELA and Math 2008
New York State ELA and Math Results 2008
New York State ELA and Math Scores 2008
New York State ELA Exam
New York state ELA test
New York State Test scores
No Child Left Behind
No Child Left Behind Act
passing rates
picking a school
press office
principal bonuses
proficiency scores
push outs
qualitative educational research
qualitative research in education
quitting teaching
race and education
racial segregation in schools
Randall Reback
Randi Weingarten
Randy Reback
recovering credits in high school
Rick Hess
Robert Balfanz
Robert Pondiscio
Roland Fryer
Russ Whitehurst
Sarah Reckhow
school budget cuts in New York City
school choice
school effects
school integration
single sex education
small schools
small schools in New York City
social justice teaching
Sol Stern
Stefanie DeLuca
stereotype threat
talented and gifted
talking about race
talking about race in schools
Teach for America
teacher effectiveness
teacher effects
teacher quailty
teacher quality
teacher tenure
teachers and obesity
Teachers College
teachers versus doctors
teaching as career
teaching for social justice
teaching profession
test score inflation
test scores
test scores in New York City
testing and accountability
Texas accountability
The No Child Left Behind Act
The Persistence of Teacher-Induced Learning Gains
thinktanks in educational research
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
Tom Kane
University of Iowa
Urban Institute study of Teach for America
Urban Institute Teach for America
value-added assessment
Wendy Kopp
women and graduate school science and engineering
women and science
women in math and science
Woodrow Wilson High School