June 2008 Archives

June 30, 2008

Inspiration and Perspiration

spiffboy2-thumb.jpg

Graduations are sacred events in American society. They mark an important transition, and graduates and their loved ones are justifiably proud of their accomplishments. For this reason, it’s a very tricky thing to comment on news stories connected to graduations. One doesn’t want to appear to be denigrating the achievements of the graduating students, many who have overcome substantial odds to obtain a diploma.

Over the past week, Joel Klein, Chancellor of the New York City Public Schools, has been making the rounds at the graduation ceremonies of some of the small high schools in NYC. Regular readers of this blog know that eduwonkette has been sharply critical of some of the “turnaround” myths constructed about these small schools, pointing out that they enrolled students who were better off academically than the students in the large high schools they replaced. At my urging, she held off on posting about the Chancellor’s e-mail to teachers about the graduation ceremonies at Bronx Lab School, one of the small schools which replaced the larger Evander Childs high school, about which she has posted repeatedly.

Jenny Medina files a story in today’s New York Times on the graduation at the Urban Assembly School for Law and Justice in Brooklyn. Much of the piece describes the extraordinary time and effort put in by the staff in order to achieve a graduation rate of 93% among the senior class. The principal, who is leaving for another position, describes herself as “exhausted,” and expressed concern that her staff could not maintain the intensity required to do their jobs well.

”You are taking a bunch of hyper, type A perfectionist people and giving them a herculean task,” she said. “People have to work much too hard to do what we are doing. People cannot work at this level all their lives and nobody is prepared to do something at a level of mediocrity.”

Ms. Medina writes that the Chancellor “seemed unconcerned that so many of the teachers at small schools were working such long hours.”

”'When people are part of the world of changing things for children, they don’t view it as work,' he said, pointing to members of his own staff who log 14-hour days.”

An uncharitable critic (that would be me) might note that one of the reasons that the Chancellor’s staff must work 14-hour days is to clean up after his many missteps and mistakes. Such a critic might also point out that the average salary of the members of the Chancellor’s staff is $113,000, whereas the average salary among the teachers at the Urban Assembly school for FY 07 was $49,000.

But let’s take the Chancellor at his word. If you’re changing the world for kids, why would only 14 hours a day be enough? Why not 19 hours a day? Don’t the Chancellor and his staff really care about changing things for children?

We need to disrupt this ridiculous myth that expects superhuman effort from educators in order to achieve success for kids. Almost all of the teachers I know work very hard, and struggle to maintain a balance between their professional responsibilities to the children they teach and building and maintaining a life outside of their work. We don’t need cartoon-like superhero educators; we need a system that supports teachers to work hard and honestly at their craft, without the risk of burnout after a couple of years.

June 30, 2008

How Much Math Does a Teacher Need to Know to Teach Math?

spiffboy2-thumb.jpg

I once asked a colleague if he’d read a particular book. “Read it?” he replied incredulously. “I haven’t even taught it!” A former college English professor, he came by the joke honestly. The first time I taught a course that I had never taken myself, I acknowledged the absurdity, at least to myself. I stayed about a week ahead of my students. Out-of-field teaching? Not exactly. I was teaching a course that was in my field, but outside of my immediate area of expertise. The teaching assignment was justified on the grounds that, as a Ph.D.-holder, I was deeply grounded in the core theoretical perspectives and research traditions in my discipline, and that I could therefore pick up the literature in a subfield quickly and accurately, and teach that literature competently. (At the time, no one was concerned with pedagogical content knowledge, the idea that there is practical knowledge of how to teach a subject that differs from mastery of the subject itself.)

Last week, the National Council on Teacher Quality released a report on the mathematics preparation of elementary school teachers who teach mathematics. The report indicts education schools for failing to select and prepare elementary teachers who have an adequate mastery of mathematics. Singling out algebra as a topic that is shortchanged in preparation programs, the authors offer a number of sensible recommendations for states, education schools, textbook publishers, and institutions of higher education.

The Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M), a comparative study of how 18 countries, including the U.S., prepare mathematics teachers at the primary and lower secondary grades, is currently underway under the auspices of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. We’ll learn a great deal from this study that will complement the NCTQ recommendations.

It seems obvious that teachers must have knowledge of the subject matter they will actually teach. But how much more knowledge should a teacher have than what she or he is seeking to assist students in learning? The case of secondary school mathematics is instructive. Is it enough for a high school trigonometry teacher to know trigonometry cold – but not, say, real analysis, or ordinary differential equations?

In the US, many states have content specialty tests that prospective teachers must pass prior to assuming full-time teaching positions; presumably these tests tell us something about the mathematical content that states think is important for teachers to master. The four-hour Massachusetts test covers number sense and operations; pattern relations, and algebra; geometry and measurement; data analysis, statistics, and probability; trigonometry, calculus, and discrete mathematics; and integration of knowledge and understanding. Approximately 23% of the test is devoted to patterns, relations, and algebra, and there are 100 multiple-choice items and two constructed-response items. From tests such as these, we can infer that some states do not demand that high school math teachers have an extensive understanding of the discipline of mathematics.

One of the reasons I was unhappy with much of the press reporting on the Urban Institute’s study of Teach for America teachers’ effects on end-of-course tests in Algebra I, Algebra II, and Geometry (among other subjects) in North Carolina is that it shifted the locus of policy discussion to whether to expand alternate routes to teacher certification, without addressing the more challenging questions about what knowledge about subject matter and about how to teach it is optimal for student learning in particular subjects in high school. The reality is that even if we could count on the incremental achievement observed in the Urban Institute study, lots of other countries would still be kicking our butts in international assessments of mathematics and other subjects. I think we’d be better off examining how these countries prepare secondary math teachers – and teachers in other subjects – to see if there are approaches that we can adapt to the U.S. context. One thing that we might learn is that other countries demand much higher levels of subject matter competence from their elementary and secondary school teachers than we do.

June 29, 2008

"Independence" Day

spiffboy2-thumb.jpg

I’ll try to stay reasonably serious this week, but some things are just too ridiculous to pass up. On Friday, the New York City Department of Education (DOE) announced that it had selected the NYC Leadership Academy to provide principal training and development services. The press release proclaimed that the Leadership Academy was “chosen from among multiple bidders in a competitive procurement process.” The DOE is negotiating a five-year contract for a total of $50 million, beginning Tuesday, July 1.

Long-time followers of New York City public schooling are aware that the NYC Leadership Academy was created by the DOE in 2003, and Chancellor Joel Klein serves as a Director of the organization. (At least according to the organization’s IRS filings – its website doesn’t list him as a director.) The Leadership Academy website describes the Leadership Academy as “the centerpiece of the NYC Department of Education’s transformational strategy,” a phrase that also appears in DOE press releases, and the staff have e-mail addresses provided to employees of the DOE. The April press release announcing this extraordinary competitive procurement spent more time crowing about the Leadership Academy’s accomplishments than describing the request for proposals.

So: The DOE had a competitive bidding process to award a contract to an organization that Mayor Mike Bloomberg and Chancellor Joel Klein had created and publicly supported over the past five years. Remarkably, the report of the award indicated that there were three other bidders. I can only imagine who would seriously think they had a shot at this.

Probably the same people who think they have a shot at this. In related news, skoolboy, who has been happily married for many years, is announcing a competitive procurement for spousal services. The successful bidder will have experience attending to the needs of a partner like skoolboy. Prior joint ownership of property with skoolboy and collaborative experience raising a family a plus. The date of the bidder’s conference will be announced later.

June 29, 2008

skoolboy returns!

sunglasses-ette.jpg

I'm taking a break this week, so skoolboy is taking the wheel. If you have compliments, thoughts, news, or tips, you can reach him at skoolboy2 (at) gmail (dot) com. An early Happy 4th to everyone!

June 29, 2008

Demographer Takes On New York City's Gifted and Talented Admissions

Andrew Beveridge, the New York Times' demographer, turns his attention to New York City's gifted program in this Gotham Gazette column. Based on his estimates, here's the bottom line on the change in gifted and talented admissions in NYC:

Non-Hispanic whites and Asians almost triple their percentage, while the percent non-Hispanic black and Hispanic plunges. In short, students accepted in the Gifted and Talented program are not all representative of the students in New York City, and are less so this year than last year.

June 28, 2008

Guest Blogger Sarah Reckhow: Easy to Blame

Sarah.jpg
Sarah Reckhow taught at Frederick Douglass High School in Baltimore from 2002 to 2004 and was a Teach for America corps member. Currently, she is a Ph.D. candidate in political science at UC Berkeley. Her dissertation explores the role of national philanthropies and community organizers in urban education policymaking.

Liam Julian’s review of “Hard Times at Douglass High” boils down a complicated stew of frustration, hope, and absurdity to a singular and simplistic point—many of the teachers are “just plain bad at their jobs.” Julian does begin with a fair remark—this documentary is not a systematic assessment of No Child Left Behind. Nonetheless, the film offers a vivid portrait of common NCLB observations and enough contextual information to make Julian’s reductive reaction dubious.

NCLB is most present in the film as a looming threat with vague and rarely applied consequences, including state takeover. The filmmakers bring us in on test day—students listlessly staring at test booklets, falling asleep, staring off into space. Many students did not take the tests seriously, assuming that the tests had no consequences or feeling too indifferent to try. We also hear from faculty commenting that they are forced to find ways to accommodate failing seniors at the end of the year in order to artificially raise the graduation rate.

We meet a state observer walking the halls with the academic dean. The state observer rattles off the various actions that may be taken if Douglass does not improve. At the end of the film, we learn that the state board of education finally tried to take over Douglass during 2005-2006, but the move was blocked by the state legislature. An impending gubernatorial election between Baltimore Mayor O’Malley and Governor Ehrlich added a heavy dose of partisan politics to that debate. The film implies that Ms. Grant, the principal in the film, was removed due to the school’s low performance. In fact, she was removed due to a school athletics scandal. Nonetheless, the school was “restructured” by the district in 2006, and the administration was replaced. The NCLB accountability system, as practiced at urban schools like Douglass, tends to operate like a merry-go-round; principal turnover rates in Baltimore are very high. School leaders get on board, ride until they get dizzy and stumble off, and then new leaders come aboard.

The bulk of Julian’s column focuses on Douglass’ teachers and seems oddly divorced from policy considerations. Drawing on clips from the film, he offers arm chair criticism of discipline and teaching methods, arguing that “the staff members at Douglass aren’t cutting it.” Even if this were true, Julian draws no clear policy lessons from his conclusion. It seems unlikely that Douglass hired only ineffective teachers from an otherwise talented pool of applicants.

Though there are great teachers at Douglass like Ms. Ray (she is featured in the film, but we never go in her classroom), it is also true that there are not enough. The film offers pieces to form an explanation—vacancies that go unfilled, long term substitute teachers, and a shortage of experienced teachers. The film features a 9th grade English class; the teacher makes a difficult choice to resign midway through the year. Substitutes come in, and the class flounders. The school has also hired a number of Teach for America corps members; some continue to teach there, but many have not stayed beyond the two year commitment, including me. All of these point to a clear problem of supply—Douglass cannot hire and keep enough good teachers to meet its needs. Teachers like Ms. Ray have heart and commitment that few of us can muster for even a few years, let alone decades.

The film does not provide new criticisms of NCLB, nor will it surprise anyone that the school struggles with teacher recruitment and retention. Viewers might be more startled by taking the longer view of Frederick Douglass High School: the school was founded in 1883 and has illustrious graduates including Thurgood Marshall; more than a century later, it is segregated, marginalized, and struggling.

Yet grumbling about the teachers who work in this difficult environment is not the answer. In fact, the film offers some illuminating scenes of teaching and learning at its best, only they don’t take place in a “typical” classroom setting. These include the school’s debate team, choir, band, and music production class. The students involved in these activities display precisely the attitudes we want schools to instill—pride, enthusiasm, and curiosity. Furthermore, the students are expected to perform well and rise to the occasion. Much of the commentary on this film has focused on Douglass at its worst, but much can be learned from Douglass at its best.

June 27, 2008

Cool People You Should Know: Andrew Ho

andrewho.jpg
If you've been reading the New York papers this week, you've already heard of Andrew Ho, an educational psychologist who teaches at the University of Iowa's School of Education. Ho studies high-stakes score trends, and has done some excellent work comparing NAEP and state score trends.

If you want to hear more about why measuring achievement trends with proficiency scores is problematic, you should watch his talk, Trend-Flipping, Gap-Bowing, and Growth Stretching: The Pliability of Popular High-Stakes Statistics. Here's a description:

The most important large-scale policy questions in education - Are students learning? Are gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged students decreasing? - are answered in part by test score trends. These trends can be reported in different ways. One popular approach is to look at the change in the percent of proficient students, where "proficient" is defined as scoring above a chosen cut score. In an clear, lively presentation, Professor Andrew Ho describes how misleading these trend statistics can be - they can be larger, smaller, and even undergo sign-reversal under a different choice of cut score. He explains the basis for this "pliability," and describes alternative approaches to reporting and comparing score trends that avoid the troublesome properties of the proficiency-based reporting that has become widespread under No Child Left Behind.

And here's a little clip from the NYT article about the New York state tests:

[Andrew Ho] said that while there was no question that students had improved substantially on New York’s exams, such gains were not mirrored in the national tests.

“They are on the order of what you might see in a 25-year trend on the national assessment,” Mr. Ho said. “Even the most pro-testing regime would have to admit there is a small component of inflation at the very least here.”

June 27, 2008

The Unintended Consequences of Focusing on Proficiency

FantasticCommenter2008_150px.jpg
I'm totally in awe of the regular commenters here - for me, they are the best part of this site. I had to share this comment by Rachel, who had this to say about the post below:

One of my worries about the emphasis on "proficiency" -- and the lack on emphasis on anything above proficiency -- is the unintended consequence of creating a two-tier, mostly segregated, educational system. Public school teach poor kids basic skills, and parents who want more than basic skills try to figure out how to get their kids into private schools -- or, if they can, move to affluent suburbs.

Now, public schools that teach poor kids basic skills are better than public schools that don't teach poor kids basic skills. But in my district -- which has an interesting demographic mix -- there's a clear tension between the "let's make sure everyone's proficient before we think about anything else" point of view, and the "we need to make sure each kid makes a year's progress every year" point of view.

And it's pretty clear that if parents get the idea that no one at a school is interested in much besides proficiency, you start losing the proficient kids to private schools and charter schools -- which then exacerbates the social inequality that "closing the achievement gap" is supposed to end.

Hat tip to Scott McLeod for making the commenter graphic.

June 26, 2008

New York's Lake Woebegon Effect

woebegon.jpg
Sol Stern nails it in his article on test score inflation:

The premise of NCLB, as of so many current education reform efforts, is that schools must serve the interests of children, not the interests of the adults who work in the system. But in a classic case of unintended consequences, the widespread test inflation produced by NCLB is serving only the interests of the adults. New York education officials like Mills, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, and his schools chancellor, Joel Klein—along with teachers’ union leaders like Randi Weingarten—advance their varied agendas in the glow of inflated test scores. But the children are the big losers. Sometime in the next decade, the white children of Lake George and the black children of New York City will come face to face with reality. On a high school math Regents test—or on an SAT test, or in a college remediation course—they will discover that they are not quite as proficient as New York State once assured them.

June 26, 2008

When Measuring Achievement Gaps, Beware the Proficiency Trap

gap.jpg
Though we can thank the No Child Left Behind Act for drawing our attention to the "achievement gap" - which is now loosely deployed to reference gaps between African-American and white/Asian, poor and advantaged, suburban and urban, or even male and female kids - it's also done us a great disservice by distorting the way that we measure, and think about, differences between groups.

There are at least two ways of thinking about the relationship between achievement and kids' life chances. The first is to consider, in absolute terms, the set of skills that students have. The second views achievement as relative. Most coveted opportunities - jobs, college admission, a good grade in a college course, or positive evaluations in the workplace - are not divvied up based on students crossing an arbitrary line of proficiency or competence. We don't give everyone a job who's passed a basic reading test, nor do we admit everyone to UC-Berkeley who's received more than a 700 on the verbal SAT. Every student in a college course at NYU can't get an A, and faculty measure students' performance against others to assign grades. In short, all of these decisions are made by comparing the performance of those in a pool, and choosing those who come out near the top.

The proficiency view, to my mind, is certainly important to consider when we are thinking about building stocks of human capital. But if we are concerned about inequality and social stratification - ensuring that, on average, every demographic and socioeconomic group is equally prepared to compete in higher education and the workplace - relative achievement measured on a continuous scale is what matters, not proficiency rates.

Which brings us to how we currently measure "achievement gaps" between social groups, and why this method is tragically flawed. For example, if you look at the NYC press release from this year's test scores, you'll see that gaps are defined as the difference between the percentage of students that are proficient in each group. If the gap in proficiency between black and white students was 29 percentage points last year in 4th grade ELA, and now is 26 percentage points, we hear that the gap has narrowed by 3 percentage points. But it's possible that the gap in the achievement that matters - the continuous measure of achievement - has actually grown.

Let me give a brief example to illustrate. If we use the proficiency logic, the achievement gap that separates the Bronx and the affluent suburbs of Westchester is closing. And indeed on Monday, Mayor Bloomberg crowed that NYC is catching up to the suburbs. If we take a look at 7th grade math, we see that there was a 30 percentage point Westchester/Bronx gap in proficiency in 2007 (73% versus 43%), but this year, there is only a 25 percentage point gap (83% versus 58%). If we use a proficiency measure, the achievement gap has closed by 5 percentage points.

Not so fast. The achievement gap, if we measure the differences in the average student scores in Westchester and the Bronx, has actually increased in 7th grade math. The scale score gap was 28 points last year. Put differently, the average Bronx 7th grader scored at the 23rd percentile of the Westchester distribution in 2007. This year, the gap was 30 points. Now the average Bronx 7th grader has dropped to the 21st percentile of the Westchester distribution, even though the achievement gap, as measured by proficiency, is closing.

Take-home point: when you hear about achievement gaps closing based on proficiency scores, beware of what you're being sold.

June 24, 2008

Are New York City Schools Shortchanging High Achieving Students? The View from 2003-2008

MyShip.jpg
Savvy New York City parents have long suspected that high achieving kids are losing out in the push to boost the achievement of the lowest performing students. But those suspicions are often cast aside by public officials as helicopter parent whining or muted class warfare.

But a review of 4th grade test score data from 2003-2008 suggests that these parents have been on to something. Between 2003 and 2008, the fraction of students scoring in the highest achievement level on the 4th grade NY state ELA test has plummeted.

In 2003, 15.6% of 4th graders scored at Level 4. By 2008, only 5.8% did. In other words, the fraction of students scoring at Level 4 in 2003 was about 2.7 times higher than this year. At the same time, the percentage of students scoring at proficiency has increased 9 percentage points, from 52.4% to 61.3%.

Put bluntly, it appears that schools are focusing on pushing lower performing students over the passing mark, and shortchanging high-achieving students in the process. In Bloomberg's New York, as it turns out, a rising tide does not lift all boats.

2003_8%204th%20Grade%20ELA.jpg

You can find the data from 1999-2005 here, and the data from 2006-2008 here. I analyzed 4th grade scores because tests weren't given in grades 3-5 throughout the entire time period. If anyone knows where to find average scale scores at different parts of the distribution over time (i.e. 10th/90th percentile) - I would have preferred to work with these data for all of the reasons suggested below - please let me know.

June 24, 2008

Welcome "Urban Angle" to the Blogosphere

gen%20y.jpg
Watch out, Edu-fogies - there's a new youngish blogger on the block. Here's what Urban Angle: A Gen Y Perspective on Education Reform is all about:

After immersing myself into the education blogosphere, I finally decided to begin a blog with a voice and perspective that is normally unheard: A (fairly) recent student of an inner city public school system. Hopefully I can provide some different perspectives to what otherwise seems like a 2 room echo chamber on education policy and reform.

June 24, 2008

In NYC Middle Grades, Fewer High Achieving ELA Students, Even As Passing Rates Increase

In grades 5-7, grades that have seen sharp increases in ELA passing rates over the past two years, the percentage of New York City students scoring in the highest performance category has decreased substantially. You can find those results here. Interestingly, this is only true for ELA, not math.

* In 2006, 8.7% of 5th graders scored at Level 4 on the ELA. This year, only 4.3% did.

* In 2006, 7.1% of 6th graders scored at Level 4. This year, only 2.2% did.

* In 2006, 4.7% of 7th graders scored at Level 4. This year, only 1.6% did.

2006_8%20Level%204%20ELA.jpg

Anyone have ideas about what's going on here? Fordham's report on high achieving students in a NCLB era provides some insight, I think.

June 24, 2008

Scale Score Magic! Why We Shouldn't Rely on Passing Rates to Measure Academic Achievement

rabbit%20hat.jpg
Consider this puzzle: in 2007, the average scale score on the New York State ELA Test was 661. In 2008, it is also 661. Yet the overall level of proficiency has increased by 3 percentage points, from 68% to 71%. How is this possible?

When we measure student achievement solely based on the proportion of students who have jumped over a bar, we can end up with pretty misleading picture of student performance.

Take a look at grades 3, 5, and 8 in the graph below, which shows the change in ELA average scales scores and passing rates for New York state. In each case, the average scale score increased by 2 points, or about .05 standard deviations. But the increases in the percentage of students who were proficient varied widely across those grades. In 3rd grade, there was an increase of 3 percentage points. In 5th grade, there was a much larger increase - 9.5 percentage points. And in 8th grade, though the average scale score increased, the percentage of students who were proficient actually decreased .9 percentage points.

Should we conclude that our 5th graders are much better off than they've been in the past, and 8th graders are falling behind? Definitely not - 5th grade just happened to hit the sweet spot of the distribution - but that's what you'd get if you relied only on passing rates.

2008%20ELA%20Graph%282%29.jpg

In short, know what you're buying when you're looking at passing rates. They can increase substantially by moving a small number of kids up a few points - just enough to clear the cut score. In some of the grade levels above, there are good reasons to suspect that these small moves may partially explain large jumps in proficiency on the New York State ELA test.

June 23, 2008

Live Blogging the 2008 NY State ELA and Math Press Conference

"No one should be surprised to see these kind of gains because there have been significant investments at the state and local level."

"I'm sure the people will say the test is easier. Take the test. Look at it yourself."


New York State Commissioner Richard Mills is on the offensive and doing his best to make sure that we all believe that the enormous NY state gains are not illusory. He's even put together a cute story about why performance is up:

* State invested an additional $3.4B in support for schools over 2 years.
* New grade by grade curriculum sets clear expectations.
* Schools are embracing changes in State curriculum.
* This is the third year of 3-8 testing. The system is responding.

Ask yourself two questions: First, is there any reason to believe that teachers suddenly became several times more successful in improving ELA and Math skills? Haven't we had increased investments in schools and new curricula in the past? Second, do we also see gains on other tests? Why haven't the NAEP scores skyrocketed?

But you can always count on NYC's fearless three - Jenny Medina, Erin Einhorn, and Elizabeth Green - to have their crap detectors on. Erin Einhorn of the Daily News asked about the huge jumps across the board, noting that experts tend to be suspicious of such increases. Mills first responded by saying that "we check the numbers very extensively," and then went on to argue that the gains weren't "that big." He pointed us to the mean scale scores, and showed that they are going up gradually. But if the scale scores are going up quite gradually while the proficiency scores have skyrocketed, doesn't this suggest that schools are focusing on bubble kids to bump up passing rates? More to come on the scale score data.

Elizabeth Green then asked about the state/NAEP discrepancy. Mills hemmed and hawed, first saying that these are different tests, and then changing course to note that NY's long term trend is positive. "They're going in the same general direction as the state scores. NAEP is a different test. It's a great indicator of general direction, but it's a different test," said Mills.

Below are trends for New York State and the "Big Five" districts: NYC, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Yonkers.

Update: Medina's NYT article here and Einhorn's Daily News article here.

2008%20ELA%20Graph.jpg

2008%20Math%20Graph.jpg

June 22, 2008

Our Very Own Disney Movie! The New York State 2008 ELA and Math Results

magic%20kingdom.jpg
I really appreciate the opportunity to join all of you here at Disney World. I can't wait to get over to the Magic Kingdom. I just love cartoon characters; outlandish fairy tales; and wild, stomach-churning roller coaster rides.
-Mayor Bloomberg, Excellence in Action Summit

If you like fairy tales, today is your day. Overnight, the majority of kids in New York City have become proficient readers (up 7 percentage points to 58%) and mathematicians (up 9 percentage points to 74%). Apparently, scores are up even more in Buffalo, Yonkers, and Rochester. Here's Elizabeth Green's article in the NY Sun, Mayor Sees a Test Score Triumph: Or Is It a Case of Inflation of Results? When test scores rise dramatically on one test and are largely flat on the NAEP, we have good reasons to worry that something besides real learning is happening. In this case, it appears that the NY ELA and Math tests were just easier, which drove up scores across the state.

Alas, at the Magic Kingdom, outlandish fairy tales always win the day. Bloomberg is holding a press soiree at P.S. 175 in Harlem this afternoon, and the state is holding its press conference at 11:45. More details to follow...

June 20, 2008

Cool People You Should Know: Brian Jacob

brian_jacob.jpg
Brian Jacob teaches at the Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. He has studied a wide range of education policy topics, including school choice, housing voucher programs, neighborhood and peer effects, educational accountability programs, and teacher labor markets. If you're interested in Chicago school reform, Jacob is a good place to turn. Kevin Carey will also be happy to know that he keeps a model website, and most of his papers are available there.

Previously on this blog, I've discussed Jacob's studies of Chicago school choice, which find no effects on test scores at the elementary or high school levels, his study asking whether principals know teachers' value-added without access to formal value-added measures, and his most recent study on the persistence of teacher effects. Another Jacob paper that I really like is called, "What Do Parents Value in Education? Empirical Investigation of Parents' Revealed Preferences for Teachers." Using data tracking the number of parental requests for teachers, here's what he found:

On average, parents strongly prefer teachers that principals describe as good at promoting student satisfaction and place relatively less value on a teacher’s ability to raise standardized math or reading achievement. These aggregate effects, however, mask striking differences across family demographics. Families in higher poverty schools strongly value student achievement and are essentially indifferent to the principal’s report of a teacher’s ability to promote student satisfaction. The results are reversed for families in higher-income schools.

June 20, 2008

At Some KIPP Schools, KIPPster-ettes Outnumber KIPPsters

smurfette.jpg
If you're not already enjoying Richard Whitmire's new gender blog, you could be. Yesterday he wrote that KIPP "is an important player in the boy troubles" because boys at KIPP start 5th grade behind the girls, but catch up to them by 7th grade.

This may very well be true, but there's another KIPP gender story that has received less attention: many KIPP schools have non-trivial gender imbalances and lose boys at a faster rate than they lose girls. Certainly I'm not the first to point this out, as the San Francisco Schools blog reported a year ago that African-American boys leave Bay Area KIPP schools at alarming rates , a finding that Ed Week followed up on in this article on KIPP attrition.

To check out the gender balance in New York area schools, I looked up the School Report Card data for KIPP Bronx and KIPP TEAM in Newark, the two KIPP schools in the area that were at full scale (i.e. they serve grades 5-8) when the last round of NY and NJ school report cards were released. From the disaggregated test score data, I pulled the number of girls and boys tested in grades 5 and 8. This is a decent proxy for the gender composition by grade, which is not available elsewhere - though it's certainly possible that more boys than girls sat these tests out.

In each of these schools, there were more girls than boys in the 5th grade classes. At KIPP TEAM/RISE in Newark (the two schools' 5th grade numbers are reported together because they're under the same charter), 62% of 5th graders were girls, as were 58% of students at KIPP Bronx. In the same year, the 8th grade composition was 71% female at KIPP TEAM and 68% female at KIPP Bronx. These data don't allow us to trace one cohort through school, but they do suggest that more girls are sticking with KIPP than boys. (KIPP's own report card from this school year also confirms that there's a gender imbalance in these schools; KIPP reports that 57% of students overall at KIPP Bronx are girls, 54% are girls at KIPP TEAM, and 57% are girls at KIPP RISE.)

kipp.jpg

The boys who stay at KIPP may, as Whitmire wrote, do extremely well. But it appears that at least in some cities, boys are also less likely to attend KIPP schools - and stay there.

Previous posts on KIPP are here:

* Do KIPP Schools Have a Positive Effect on Their Students' Achievement?
* When a Lottery Is Not a Lottery
* Does KIPP Provide a Solution to the Problems of Urban Education?
* What Lessons Does KIPP Offer for Urban School Reform?
* Comment on "Lies My KIPP Teacher Told Me"

June 19, 2008

With New Rules for Gifted Programs, NYC's Poor and Minority Students Lose Out

nytmap.jpg
If you'd ever bumped your head up against test score distributions for entering kindergarteners, you already knew that NYC's shift to a uniform cutoff for gifted admissions - the 90th percentile - could only hurt poor and minority kids' access to gifted programs. So many of you were unsurprised in April when I analyzed the new gifted and talented data, and found that poor and minority kids' access to gifted and talented programs had been seriously diminished. (See maps here.)

Kudos to Elissa Gootman and Robert Gebeloff at the New York Times, who pushed the G&T issue out onto center stage this morning (Gifted Programs in the City are Less Diverse):

An analysis by The New York Times shows that under the new policy, children from the city’s poorest districts were offered a smaller percentage than last year of the entry-grade gifted slots in elementary schools. Children in the city’s wealthiest districts captured a greater share of the slots.

Considered alongside Fordham's report on high achieving students and Stanford prof Sean Reardon's finding that the black-white grows faster among the highest achieving students, these losses in G&T seats should not be taken lightly. Because of NYC's stark residential segregation, high achieving minority students are more likely to attend schools populated by low-achieving students than are high achieving white students. Robert Pondiscio has done a great job educating us about how this unfolds in New York City classrooms, "The 'not your problem' kids walk in smart and walk out smart, largely by accident of birth. While they’re in school, they are nearly completely neglected, and as a result achieve not nearly as much as they would have (while still testing at or above grade level on dumbed-down state tests) had they not been starved for oxygen in an underperforming school, where they were constantly praised for being bright, but had few demands placed upon them, and where opportunities for enrichment, in or out of school, were non-existent."

Let's hope that those concerned with "educational equity" revise the admissions policy for next year. Here's what I'd like to see: If we want to increase access to advanced instruction for disadvantaged kids who are more advanced than their peers, we might consider offering gifted slots to the top 5% of students in each community school district, while also guaranteeing a seat for any student who scores in the 90th percentile or above of the national distribution. This is analogous to states' top 4% (California) or top 10% (Texas) plans for college admissions, which guarantee college admission to students who have excelled in their own high schools. Thoughts?

June 18, 2008

The Disadvantages of an Elite Education

yale_audience.jpg
William Deresiewicz, a Yale English prof for the last 10 years, has written a downright haunting essay in The American Scholar on the many ways that elite colleges fall short. He charges that elite colleges:

1) "Teach students to believe that people who didn’t go to an Ivy League or equivalent school weren’t worth talking to, regardless of their class."

2) Inculcate a false sense of self-worth ("Getting to an elite college, being at an elite college, and going on from an elite college—all involve numerical rankings: SAT, GPA, GRE. You learn to think of yourself in terms of those numbers. They come to signify not only your fate, but your identity; not only your identity, but your value.")

3) Initiate the winners into a club that's almost impossible to get booted out of once you're in ("Here, too, college reflects the way things work in the adult world (unless it’s the other way around). For the elite, there’s always another extension—a bailout, a pardon, a stint in rehab—always plenty of contacts and special stipends—the country club, the conference, the year-end bonus, the dividend.").

The most "damning disadvantage," he writes, is the anti-intellectualism that is encouraged by rewarding "hoop jumpers" and "teacher pleasers:"

"But if you’re afraid to fail, you’re afraid to take risks, which begins to explain the final and most damning disadvantage of an elite education: that it is profoundly anti-intellectual. This will seem counterintuitive. Aren’t kids at elite schools the smartest ones around, at least in the narrow academic sense? Don’t they work harder than anyone else—indeed, harder than any previous generation? They are. They do. But being an intellectual is not the same as being smart. Being an intellectual means more than doing your homework.

If so few kids come to college understanding this, it is no wonder. They are products of a system that rarely asked them to think about something bigger than the next assignment. The system forgot to teach them, along the way to the prestige admissions and the lucrative jobs, that the most important achievements can’t be measured by a letter or a number or a name. It forgot that the true purpose of education is to make minds, not careers.

Being an intellectual means, first of all, being passionate about ideas—and not just for the duration of a semester, for the sake of pleasing the teacher, or for getting a good grade. A friend who teaches at the University of Connecticut once complained to me that his students don’t think for themselves. Well, I said, Yale students think for themselves, but only because they know we want them to. I’ve had many wonderful students at Yale and Columbia, bright, thoughtful, creative kids whom it’s been a pleasure to talk with and learn from. But most of them have seemed content to color within the lines that their education had marked out for them. Only a small minority have seen their education as part of a larger intellectual journey, have approached the work of the mind with a pilgrim soul. These few have tended to feel like freaks, not least because they get so little support from the university itself. Places like Yale, as one of them put it to me, are not conducive to searchers.

Being an intellectual begins with thinking your way outside of your assumptions and the system that enforces them. But students who get into elite schools are precisely the ones who have best learned to work within the system, so it’s almost impossible for them to see outside it, to see that it’s even there. Long before they got to college, they turned themselves into world-class hoop-jumpers and teacher-pleasers, getting A’s in every class no matter how boring they found the teacher or how pointless the subject, racking up eight or 10 extracurricular activities no matter what else they wanted to do with their time. Paradoxically, the situation may be better at second-tier schools and, in particular, again, at liberal arts colleges than at the most prestigious universities. Some students end up at second-tier schools because they’re exactly like students at Harvard or Yale, only less gifted or driven. But others end up there because they have a more independent spirit. They didn’t get straight A’s because they couldn’t be bothered to give everything in every class. They concentrated on the ones that meant the most to them or on a single strong extracurricular passion or on projects that had nothing to do with school or even with looking good on a college application. Maybe they just sat in their room, reading a lot and writing in their journal. These are the kinds of kids who are likely, once they get to college, to be more interested in the human spirit than in school spirit, and to think about leaving college bearing questions, not resumés.

The world that produced John Kerry and George Bush is indeed giving us our next generation of leaders. The kid who’s loading up on AP courses junior year or editing three campus publications while double-majoring, the kid whom everyone wants at their college or law school but no one wants in their classroom, the kid who doesn’t have a minute to breathe, let alone think, will soon be running a corporation or an institution or a government. She will have many achievements but little experience, great success but no vision. The disadvantage of an elite education is that it’s given us the elite we have, and the elite we’re going to have."

Does this square with anyone else's teaching and learning experiences?

June 17, 2008

High Achieving Students in the Era of No Child Left Behind

DHARTbanner.jpg
Fordham's new study on how high achievers have fared under No Child Left Behind is out. (See NYT coverage here.) Here's the main story:

* While the nation's lowest-achieving youngsters made rapid gains [on NAEP] from 2000 to 2007, the performance of top students was languid. Children at the 10th percentile of achievement (the bottom 10 percent of students) have shown solid progress in fourth grade reading and math and in eighth grade math since 2000, but those at the 90th percentile have made minimal gains.

* This pattern - big gains for low achievers and lesser ones for high achievers - is associated with the introduction of accountability systems in general, not just NCLB. An analysis of state data from the 1990s shows that states that adopted testing and accountability regimes before NCLB saw similar patterns before NCLB: stronger progress for low achievers than for high achievers.

All of this, of course, should have been expected in a system focused on proficiency rather than growth. And contrary to popular belief, NCLB's growth model pilot doesn't allow true value-added models, but is instead based on a "projection model." Michael Weiss has a great commentary in Ed Week this week on this issue:

In practice, projection models are extremely similar to NCLB’s original status measure. In schools where students enter with high initial achievement levels, the learning gains required to get students on track to become proficient are quite small, while in schools where students enter with low initial achievement levels, the required learning gains to get students on track to become proficient may be unrealistically large. Consequently, under the federal growth-model program, schools are still held to different standards­—some must produce large gains while others need only to produce small gains. Both status and projection models require all students to reach a fixed proficiency target regardless of their initial achievement levels. It is because No Child Left Behind’s status model and the growth-model pilot program’s projection models are so similar that very few new schools are making AYP because of “growth” alone.

If Tom Toch's post over at The Quick and the Ed is any indication, it looks like many factors are coming together to shift the winds on NCLB - both from proficiency to value-added models, and from ignoring the role of out-of-school factors to acknowledging that it is unfair to hold schools solely accountable for them. Said Toch:

What we need to do is find ways to give schools credit for successfully improving the educational performance of the kids they have, by using so-called value-added measures of student performance, and by capturing more than just how well schools teach basic reading and math skills....Yes, we need to hold schools and teachers accountable for their performance....But no, we shouldn’t pretend that poverty has no impact on students. No accountability system can work unless it is credible, and NCLB, as currently crafted, is not.

June 17, 2008

A Leonard Sax Fact Check: Are Women Worse Off in Science and Engineering Than They Were 20 Years Ago?

Leonard Sax, everyone's favorite advocate of gender-based education, has a commentary in this week's Ed Week, "Where the Girls Aren't: What the Media Missed in the AAUW's Report on Gender Equity." Here's the central argument:

"There is a real gender gap, and it’s growing rapidly, but that gap has little to do with graduation rates or college-entrance rates, parameters that are given great emphasis in the report. The real gender gap is not in ability but in motivation—not in what girls and boys can do, but in what girls and boys want to do: specifically, in what they want to learn, and how they want to learn it."

What's the evidence for his argument? "The absolute number of young women studying computer science and physics has fallen by more than 50 percent in the past 20 years. That drop may seem puzzling at first, since the past 20 years has been an era in which girls have been encouraged from kindergarten through grade 12 to be physicists, engineers, and the like," says Sax.

Is Sax right? Before looking specifically at physics, computer science, and engineering, let's check out trends in female BA attainment in science and engineering from 1966-2004. Over this time period, the percent of science and engineering degrees awarded to women has increased from 25% to 50%, according to data from the National Science Foundation.

nsf.jpg

But what about the "hardest sciences?" Women have made steady gains in every field over this time period. Women earn more than 60% of degrees in the biological sciences, half of the degrees in Chemistry, and almost half of the degrees in mathematics. The female share of degrees in physics, engineering, and computer science has also increased steadily over this time period. Less than 5% of degrees were awarded to women in physics and engineering in the 1960s, and now 1 in 5 degrees in these fields goes to women. (Thanks to the American Institute of Physics for the graph.)

degrees.jpg

However, the female share of computer science degrees in 1985 was greater than it is in 2004. Why might that be? Things have ramped up since the Commodore 64, and the number of degrees awarded in computer science has exploded. That growth has been faster for men than women. But if you look at counts of degrees - the meat of Sax's argument - the same number of women earned CS degrees in 2004 as did at the female CS peak in 1985. (See this graph.) In short, Sax's claim does not appear to be true - the same number of women earned degrees in CS in the mid-1980s, and the female share of physics degrees has increased even as overall physics enrollments have increased.

When I contacted Dr. Sax about these data, he argued that overall degree attainment is misleading because the increase in female science and engineering degrees is driven by temporary visa holders, not US citizens. He wrote, "Neither of your graphs takes into account the NATIONALITY of the women earning the degrees. Most of the rise in the number of women earning degrees in computer science since 1999 comes from women from other countries holding temporary US visas."

As far as I can tell, the BA attainment data are not available for citizens and non-citizens before 1995. Over that time period, female US citizens and permanent residents made amazing strides in science and engineering BA attainment. Between 1995 and 2004, there was a 30% increase in the number of science and engineering BAs awarded to female US citizens, which is 2.5 times the growth for male American citizens. Let's look at different disciplines:

*The number of physics BAs grew 36% for women, 8 times the increase for men.

* In engineering, the number of degrees grew 19% for women even as it dropped 1% for men.

* The number of electrical engineering degrees grew 35% for women, 1.6 times the growth rate for men.

* In computer science, there was a 102% increase for women, which was less than the increase for men. (And per Sax's specific claim above, the number of female US citizens earning CS degrees increased 36% (from 9,569 to 12,990) between 2000-2004; it increased from 905 to 1416 (56%) for female non-US citizens.)

Sure, you can find some fields where there have not been increases for women. For example, there's been a 4% decrease in female BA attainment in mathematics. But when we look at the whole picture, rather than cherry pick one or two subfields, it's hard to see evidence here that gender-mixed math and science classes in K-12 have slowed female American citizens' rate of progress in earning science and engineering BAs.

Unsatisfied with the fact that women have made quite substantial gains at the undergraduate level in science and engineering, Sax suggested that I look at graduate school. But again, female US citizens have made enormous gains at the graduate level as well. There were 135,431 female US citizen graduate students in science and engineering in 1999 and 163,820 in 2006: a 21% increase. At the same time, the number of male US citizen graduate students in science and engineering has only increased by 8%. To be sure, the rate of increase for non-US citizen women is greater than the rate of increase for US citizens - but there is that globalization phenomenon to consider.

In sum, Leonard Sax's commentary did not provide an accurate portrait of trends in women's attainment in science and engineering. Women still have a way to go before achieving parity in computer science, physics, and engineering, but there's little evidence that gender-based education a la Sax is going to get us there.

June 16, 2008

Welcome Richard Whitmire's New Blog on Gender and Education

whitmire_photo_100.jpg
Richard Whitmire, USA Today reporter and President of the Education Writers Association, has kicked off a new blog called "Why Boys Fail."

Whitmire has a theory about why girls have pulled ahead in higher education: "as the world has become more verbal, schools have allowed boys to slip behind in literacy skills." Whitmire's hypothesis is intriguing, and the changing demands of schools, higher education, and the workplace deserve more attention.

But if we look at long-term NAEP reading trends, we see that girls have always had an advantage over boys in reading. In 4th and 8th grade, boys have caught up to girls over time. For 4th graders, the female reading advantage has narrowed by 60% since 1971; for 8th graders, it has only decreased by one point (I believe the standard deviation is 36 points), but it certainly hasn't grown over time. In 12th grade, the female advantage has only increased slightly since 1971. We unfortunately don't have a long-term writing trend, but at least over the last 10 years, the 12th grade female writing advantage has not grown (it decreased by 1 point over the past 10 years).

Perhaps the world has become more verbal, but if NAEP reading scores are any indicator, schools have not allowed boys to slip behind in verbal skills any more than they had in the past. (Also note that girls arrive in kindergarten with a substantial reading advantage.) That the return to verbal skills has increased over time, however, is an interesting idea, and one that I look forward to hearing more about at Whitmire's blog.

aauw.jpg

June 15, 2008

Everyone's Favorite Sound Bite About Highly Effective Teachers Put to the Test

talking-mouth.gif
"By our estimates from Texas schools, having an above average teacher for five years running can completely close the average gap between low-income students and others."
-Steve Rivkin, Rick Hanushek, and John Kain (2005)

"Having a top-quartile teacher rather than a bottom-quartile teacher four years in a row would be enough to close the black-white test score gap."
-Robert Gordon, Tom Kane, and Doug Staiger (2006)

"There are big differences in the amounts and kinds of learning that different teachers help produce....these effects are cumulative."
- Kati Haycock, Education Trust

It's everyone's favorite sound bite: good teachers alone can close racial and socioeconomic achievement gaps. But if the entire teacher effect doesn't persist from year-to-year - that is, a student only retains some fraction of the learning advantage they get from having a highly effective teacher - these claims simply don't hold up.

In a new paper, "The Persistence of Teacher-Induced Learning Gains", Brian Jacob, Lars Lefgren, and David Sims estimate how much of the teacher effect fades out over time. It turns out that kids lose more of these short-term test score gains that we (or at least I) thought:

"Our estimates suggest that only about one-fifth of the test score gain from a high value-added teacher remains after a single year. Given our standard errors, we can rule out one-year persistence rates above one-third. After two years, about one-eighth of the original gain persists."

Yes, you read that correctly. Even if you rely on the upper bound estimates of teacher effect persistance from this study, only a third of that gain sticks around. If you take their point estimate, only 20% of this gain persists. If gains fade out at this rate, we may be overstating the ability of highly effective teachers to contribute to students' long-term academic skills, says Jacob:

"Our results indicate that contemporary teacher value-added measures may overstate the ability of teachers, even exceptional ones, to influence the ultimate level of student knowledge since they conflate variation in short-term and long-term knowledge. Given that a school’s objective is to increase the latter, the importance of teacher value-added measures as currently estimated may be substantially less than the teacher value-added literature indicates."

Jacob and colleagues conclude that we should revisit the "5 great teachers can erase gaps" claim that is so common in education policy discourse:

"Previous researchers have referenced a counterfactual world in which a series of high value-added effects for a hypothetical student with a string of good teachers may be simply added together. Given this scenario, researchers and policymakers have advocated the widespread use of such value-added measures in a variety of education policies including teacher compensation and teacher/school accountability. Our results suggest some caution should be taken in focusing on such measures of teacher effectiveness. If value-added test score gains do not persist over time, adding up consecutive gains does not correctly account for the benefits of higher value-added teachers. Of course, the same caution should be attached to any educational intervention. Hence, the broader implication from this work is that researchers and policymakers should make greater effort to track the long-run impact of education policies and programs."

If you can't access the paper, I've linked to Brian Jacob's contact info above, or shoot me an email (eduwonkette (at) gmail (dot) com).

Update: * To clarify, this paper does not find that teachers "don't matter." If every teacher moved students forward 2 grade levels - an effect twice as large as the gains we expect teachers to produce - we would find no "teacher effects" on test scores, i.e. having one teacher versus another wouldn't matter because all teachers would be equally effective in increasing test scores. But teachers would still make enormous contributions to students' learning in this scenario - they still "matter." Jacob and colleagues' point is simply that the difference between having a below and above-average teacher may be inflated in the current literature because we've been focusing on short-term versus long-term gains.

* Chad Aldeman at The Quick and the Ed misunderstands the implications of the paper: "These findings in no way challenge previous studies indicating teacher effects accumulate over time." This study does find that teacher effects accumulate - a student does, after all, hold on to 20% of the teacher-induced learning gains - but they do not accumulate in the additive way that those quoted at the top of this post have suggested. The above quotes assume that students carry forward the full gain, and that as a result, we can close the achievement gap by giving students five 84th percentile teachers in a row. If teacher-induced gains decay at the rate documented in this paper, this sound bite does not hold up.

June 13, 2008

Still a Bobo in Paradise

bobs.jpg
Meet the Status Quo. It includes the Chairman of the Board of the NAACP (Julian Bond), the former president of the Urban League (Hugh Price), a Nobel prize winning economist and expert on early childhood interventions (Jim Heckman), some of the country's most distinguished experts on urban poverty (William Julius Wilson, Christopher Jencks) and educational accountability (Helen Ladd), a well-known professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School (T. Berry Brazelton), two former Surgeon Generals (Jocelyn Elders and Richard Carmona), Ernie Cortes (of the Industrial Areas Foundation), school practitioners like Debbie Meier, Ted Sizer, and Jim Comer who have spent their careers challenging the status quo, and too many other people to list here who have dedicated their lives to improving the lives of poor and minority children. And yes, David, they accept your apology.

I really do hate my permanent residence in the reality-based community, but at least half of the achievement gap that exists between black and white students - the fact that the average black 12th grader performs at about the 16th percentile of the white distribution (a gap of about 1 standard deviation)- cannot possibly be attributed to the K-12 schools. Why? The average black student enters kindergarten testing at about the 25 percentile of the white distribution in math (a gap of .663 standard deviations), and the 35th percentile of the white distribution in reading (a gap of .4 standard deviations). "Squeezing teachers," "dealing with teachers who don't teach," or "holding teachers feet to the fire," I'm sorry to say, are not going to address that gap. And between kindergarten and 12th grade, kids are only in school 22% of their waking hours. It turns out that poor students' slower rate of learning in the summer plays a significant role in increasing existing gaps.

Of course schools play a role in exacerbating these problems - no one said they don't - in particular because of the unequal distribution of teachers across schools. We can all acknowledge that this distribution of teachers is a partial legacy of contract rules - still in place in many districts - that gave preference to senior teachers. Both coalitions are concerned with attracting and retaining good teachers in hard to staff schools, and perhaps they can find some common ground there.

But it would be great if we grounded this discussion in some basic facts - facts that might include the current distribution of school effects, and how much of the achievement gap we could expect to see narrowed if we move a student from a below to an above average school (critical for the school choice question); how modest the effects of accountability have historically been on gaps (very little action at all on the black-white gap - Texas also comes to mind), and how more "vigorous accountability" will differ in ways that produce different outcomes; how much of the gap is a function of school-year versus summer learning; and how much of the gap is there when kids start school.

June 12, 2008

Cool People You Should Know: Ken Frank

Ken.jpg
Ken Frank is a statistician who teaches at Michigan State's College of Education. The release of the National Research Council report on the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards is a good time to profile his recently published article asking whether NBPTS certification affects the number of colleagues a teacher helps with instructional matters. His research team collected sociometric data from 47 elementary schools in two states. Teachers reported which teachers were helpful with instruction, and Frank and colleagues found that NBPTS certified were more likely to provide instructional help to their colleagues. He concluded:

As a major reform in American education, NBPTS certification has yet to prove itself in certain terms. But we interpret the evidence so far as indicating for the most part that NBPTS certified teachers are effective teachers, and that the status of NBPTS certification can serve a number of potentially useful functions in schools and districts. If NBPTS certification status promotes helping behavior among teachers, it is one important indicator of their leadership potential in such formal roles as mentor teacher, instructional coach, cooperating teacher (with university-based teacher education), team- or grade-level leader, and others. Such leadership is increasingly important because many schools across the country are developing teacher leader positions intermediate between the principal and a school’s staff (see, e.g., Mangin and Stoelinga, in press). NBPTS certification is one natural device for “certifying” a teacher’s capability in filling these new roles; evidence indicating both that NBPTS certified teachers provide help more than comparable peers and that certification status enjoys a causal relationship with such help is an important finding in the evolving social organization of the teaching occupation.

Here is a partial list of publications coming out of the project, including contact info if you'd like a copy of the paper.

June 11, 2008

Why We Should Care About Test Score Inflation

nailed_first_inflation_s.jpg
Kevin Carey’s dismissal of “test score inflation” provides an ideal opportunity to talk about the book I finished this weekend, Measuring Up: What Educational Testing Really Tells Us, by Dan Koretz, a psychometrician at the Harvard Grad School of Education – hardly an opponent of testing.

Koretz calls “test score inflation,” in which gains on tests used for accountability dramatically outpace gains on low stakes tests, the “dirty secret of high-stakes testing.” If you compare NAEP trends and state score trends, you’ll see that state scores have increased significantly more than NAEP scores since NCLB was adopted.

To understand why test score inflation is a serious problem, you have to understand the sampling principle of testing. Koretz provides the following example: Suppose we want to evaluate students’ vocabulary. A typical high school student knows 11,000 root words, but a test can only include a sample of these words – maybe 40. If we design our test well, we can still learn something about the breadth of each student’s vocabulary. But we don’t really care if the student knows the 40 words on the test; rather, we care about the larger domain from which these words are sampled.

Now imagine that for weeks before our test, I drilled students incessantly on those 40 words. Voila! They perform exceptionally on the test. Yes, their vocabularies have increased by 40 words. Maybe these are 40 really important words - the so-called "test worth teaching to." But proficiency in the domain that my test is intended to measure has not expanded by the same amount. I’ve seen this over and over again; administrators and teachers figure out which concepts are consistently on the test, and which aren’t, and they alter their instruction accordingly. The trouble is that if we administer a slightly different test, drawing on a broader range of concepts from the domain we care about, kids haven't mastered them.

Carey explains that this is just a standards mismatch problem - i.e. state test standards are not the same as those used on national tests. Koretz takes Carey’s critique head on in this passage:

"Alignment is a lynchpin of policy in this era of standards-based testing. Tests should be aligned with standards, and instruction should be aligned with both....And alignment is seen by many as insurance against score inflation. For example, a principal of a local school that is well known for the high scores achieved by its largely poor and minority students gave a presentation to the Harvard Graduate School of Education a few years ago. At one point, she angrily denounced critics who worry about 'teaching to the test.' We had no reason to be concerned about teaching to the test in her school, she asserted, because the state’s test measures important knowledge and skills. Therefore, if her faculty teaches to the test, students will learn important things.

This is nonsense, and I have a hunch about what I would find if I were allowed to administer an alternative test to her students. Alignment is just reallocation by another name. Certainly it is better to focus instruction on material that someone deems valuable, rather than frittering time away on unimportant things. But that is not enough. Whether alignment inflates scores depends also on the importance of the material that is deemphasized. And research has shown that standards-based tests are not immune to this problem. These tests too are limited samples from larger domains, and therefore focusing too narrowly on the content of the specific test can inflate scores." (p. 253-254)

We only care about test scores if they translate into general improvements in children’s academic skills that generate meaningful improvements in their life chances. If these gains don’t translate to tests that measure similar skills – basic reading and math competencies - what are the chances that they are going to help them succeed in the workplace or in college? And that is a very good reason to worry about test score inflation.

Spoiler alert: NY state test scores are out next week, if not sooner. What should we make of NYC's flat NAEP scores alongside state test improvements so large they're unbelievable? Kind of makes you wonder.

June 10, 2008

Bold and Broad Brain Scan: It's Not an Either/Or, and No One Said It Was!

rr.jpg
It didn't take long for the blogosphere to use its heralded mind reading abilities to accuse the Broader/Bolder campaign of advancing reforms traditionally outside of the K-12 system at the expense of K-12 reform.

Read the statement. It said no such thing. In fact, the report argues for continued school improvement efforts:

To close achievement gaps, we need smaller classes in early grades for disadvantaged children; to attract high-quality teachers in hard-to-staff schools; improve teacher and school leadership training; make college preparatory curriculum accessible to all; and pay special attention to recent immigrants.

June 10, 2008

Big Props for a "Broader, Bolder Approach to Education"

The potential effectiveness of NCLB has been seriously undermined, however, by its acceptance of the popular assumptions that bad schools are the major reason for low achievement, and that an academic program revolving around standards, testing, teacher training, and accountability can, in and of itself, offset the full impact of low socioeconomic status on achievement.
-The Broader, Bolder Approach to Education Task Force Report

This morning, more than 60 heavy hitters kicked off a campaign calling for a "broader, bolder approach to education policy." (You may have already seen the print ads in the Washington Post and NY Times.) Co-chaired by Sunny Ladd, a Duke University economist, Pedro Noguera, a sociologist at NYU, and Tom Payzant, the former Boston schools superintendent and U.S. assistant secretary of education, the task force calls for a more expansive view of education policy that views schools as one component of a comprehensive youth development strategy. Here are their four recommendations:

1. Continued school improvement efforts. To close achievement gaps, we need smaller classes in early grades for disadvantaged children; to attract high-quality teachers in hard-to-staff schools; improve teacher and school leadership training; make college preparatory curriculum accessible to all; and pay special attention to recent immigrants.

2. Developmentally appropriate and high-quality early childhood, pre-school and kindergarten care and education. These programs must not only help low-income children students academically, but provide support in developing appropriate social, economic and behavioral skills.

3. Routine pediatric, dental, hearing and vision care for all infants, toddlers and schoolchildren. In particular, full-service school clinics can fill the health gaps created by the absence of primary care physicians in low-income areas, and poor parents’ inability to miss work for children’s routine health services.

4. Improving the quality of students’ out-of-school time. Low-income students learn rapidly in school, but often lose ground after school and during summers. Policymakers should increase investments in areas such as longer school days, after-school and summer programs, and school-to-work programs with demonstrated track records.

eduwonk suggests that the acknowledgment that schools can't do it alone is just another tired opinion, "The explicit rejection that perhaps schools are even a substantial part of the educational problem is unsettling." Recall that many of these signers have spent years studying school effects - the effect of going to one school versus another, all else equal - on test scores. This is a conclusion derived from years of confronting that distribution of school effects over and over again.

Particularly notable in this regard is the leadership of Sunny Ladd, who spent the last 10 years investigating the effects of accountability on North Carolina schools. She's an economist - hardly someone against the use of incentives - but she's seen the meager effects of accountability alone on the reduction of achievement gaps. And many early supporters of NCLB-style arrangements are represented here as well - Susan Neuman, Bob Schwartz (the President of Achieve from 1997-02), and Milt Goldberg (of the A Nation at Risk commission).

No one is saying that schools aren't important. No one is saying that we should abandon efforts to improve schools. And no one is saying that we should "let schools off the hook." What they are saying is that the effects of schools are not large enough to wipe out the gaps that are created by students' out-of-school environments.

You can - and I hope you will - become a co-signer on the statement here.

June 09, 2008

ATRs Continued: The UFT's Policy Recommendations

At the end of last week, the UFT responded to the New Teacher Project report on ATRs in NYC. (If you missed the backstory, see Why You Should Read the Fine Print in the New Teacher Project Report, Why Buy the Teacher When You Can Have the Teaching for Free?, Tim Daly on the New Teacher Project report, and Joel Klein Blames Teachers for $4 Gas, Subprime Crisis).

Though the NYT article was pretty vague, the UFT actually made six policy recommendations:

1. The DOE should take a more pro-active role in placing ATRs, as the contract requires, by sending ATRs for the first interviews for open positions, before other candidates—new hires or transfers—are considered. Successfully placing more ATRs would avoid the unnecessary costs of hiring and mentoring more new teachers and maintaining a large ATR pool when the talent already exists in the system to staff vacancies.

2. Make teacher hiring selections financially neutral. The FSF budget replaced a longstanding system in which schools were fully funded for their teachers. Schools considered only an educator’s qualifications and “fit” for a position at the school, with no incentive to hire the cheapest candidate. Such a neutral system is fairer all around.

3. As an incentive, DOE could, for a specified period of time, cover the cost of ATRs who are permanently hired in a school.

4. Implement the contract provision that permits the union and DOE to negotiate a buyout to any remaining excessed teachers. Any additional cost would be offset by savings for the school administration.

5. Let the experience and expertise of ATRs be known to principals rather than maligning them, thus encouraging their hiring.

6. Offer a coaching and skills training program to ATRs who wish to enhance their marketability.

These recommendations sound pretty reasonable to me, and I see no retreat on mutual consent here. I can't say enough times that creating an incentive to hire the cheapest candidates was one of the poorest policy choices the NYC DOE has made. For similar reasons (the problem of creating different price incentives across candidates), I'm not crazy about #3 - but the real action above is in reforming "Fair Student Funding" and negotiating a buyout.

And to eduwonk's point about the dispute over how many ATRs are performing the duties of full-time classroom teachers: student schedules and report cards/transcripts are a good place to start looking. If you're responsible for evaluating students for more than a marking period, you are their regular teacher.

June 09, 2008

NCLB This Week: The Trailer

neuman-536.jpg
In this Time article, Susan Neuman, who served as Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education during George W. Bush's first term, lets us in on her doubts about NCLB and the administration's missteps. Buried at the bottom of the article is a good reason to keep your eyes on the papers tomorrow:

Neuman still supports school accountability and the much-maligned annual tests mandated by the law. But she now believes that the nation has to look beyond the schoolroom, if it wishes to leave no child behind. Along with 59 other top educators, policymakers and health officials, she's put her name to a nonpartisan document to be released on Tuesday by the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank. Titled "A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education," it lays out an expansive vision for leveling the playing field for low-income kids, one that looks toward new policies on child health and support for parents and communities. Neuman says that money she's seen wasted on current programs should be reallocated accordingly. "Pinning all our hopes on schools will never change the odds for kids."

June 09, 2008

A Plea to Stop the Drama on Teacher Misconduct

paris_hilton_tinkerbell_dog.jpg
Providing shock and awe news on the gritty trespasses committed by teachers is a cottage industry. Now there are entire blogs committed to this enterprise, the most disgusting of which is Detention Slip. Rather than discussing these stories in a productive way, something that more astute observers have consistently done (See Scott McLeod on cell phone videos or Corey Bower on teachers losing their cool), the goal is to discredit teachers and public education in general.

There are 3.2 million public school teachers in America. Even if one hundredth of one percent (.01%) of them did egregious things, we would still see about 2 awful stories in the news for every day of the school year. I am not suggesting that we ignore these issues, but asking that we put them in perspective. Every profession struggles with how to enforce and maintain professional norms (see Robert Pondiscio on a Hippocratic Oath for education). Those discussions are important. But I question the wisdom of focusing so much attention on these stories when they are no way typical of the behavior of public educators.

June 09, 2008

Should Kids Protest? The Case of New York City's Budget Cuts

kpp2.jpg
No one expected that Graeme Frost, a 12-year old who suffered brain stem injuries in a car accident, would become a political target after he delivered a late September radio address in support of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Commentators demurred that if a political party "send[s] a boy to do a man’s job, then the boy is fair game." The episode raised difficult questions over the role of children in political debate. Are they mini-protesters, learning the ropes of democracy, or simply political pawns?

New York City is likely to encounter these thorny questions this week, as multiple flights of public schoolchildren are slated to protest at Tweed Courthouse under the auspices of the Kids Protest Project. Truth be told, my own view on kids' budget protests is strongly shaped by my own participation in such protests as a kid. When we were in elementary school, we wrote letters. When we were a little older, a few of us piped up at budget hearings. And when we were in high school, we organized a hundred teenagers to fill rooms at Board meetings, and scared the bejesus out of the Board in the process.

We didn't understand the larger issues, but we were advocating for our short-term interests. Wouldn't each of us be marginally better off if our school had more dough? All of these experiences were formative in my attitudes towards political engagement, and I look back on them fondly - which is all a long way of acknowledging that I'm the wrong person to offer nuanced analysis on kids protesting budget cuts.

So I'll leave it to you to tease this one out - isn't this just like the Regents using a one-sided prompt on Teach for America? Or is it different because students' short-term interests are served by garnering more funds? You can read letters to Chancellor Klein from kids at PS 87 below.

Dear Chancellor Klein,

My name is Danny, and I am a student at P.S. 87. My brother is coming into this school next year. It will be my 5th year next year in this school.

The purpose of this letter is to stop you from taking money from the schools. Would you like it if you were in third grade and the chancellor was going to take money from your school? I hope this letter will change your mind.

Sincerely,
Danny

***

Dear Chancellor Klein,

Hello. My name is James. I go to P.S. 87. I just heard that you're cutting the school's budget. I don't want to be mean, but next year I'm going to be in the 4th grade, and I want it to be even better than last year, but it won't be if you lower my and other schools' budgets. There won't be enough money for books (and I'm crazy over books) and chairs for sitting on, and pencils to last us through September to June, and a lot more reasons that I don't want to talk about! So, please, stop cutting my and other schools' budgets, so that I will have a wonderful 4th grade.

Sincerely,
James

***

Dear Chancellor Klein,

Hi, my name is Nicole. I'm a student in P.S. 87. It is a public school. Please do not cut anyone from the school, and please don't take money from the school.

Love,
Nicole

June 06, 2008

Fewer Teens Having Sex Than in the 1990s, Says CDC

mscl.jpg
The new Youth Risk Behavior Survey, a survey of 14,000 American high school students conducted annually by the Centers for Disease Control, shows that African-American and white teens are less likely to be sexually active than they were in 1991, though the declines are more precipitous for African-Americans.

* In 2007, 66% of African-American students had ever had sexual intercourse, while in 1991, 82% had.

* In 2007, 44% of white students ever had sexual intercourse, while in 1991, 50% had.

* Hispanic students are no less likely to be sexually active in 2007 than in 1991. 2007, 52% of Hispanic students ever had sexual intercourse, while in 1991, 53% had.

Even as fewer teens are having sex, teen television dramas have ramped it up. Compare the relatively tame My So-Called Life (circa 1994) with Gossip Girl, for which the "OMFG" ad campaign involved images too racy for this family friendly site.

June 06, 2008

What Do Public Servants Owe the Public When They Make Mistakes?

Imagine that you are a public servant. This year, you've left families in a lurch by centralizing an enrollment system that you lacked the organizational capacity to run effectively. It is June, and kids and families are still in the dark about their middle and pre-school placements for September. How should you react?

a) You should issue a heartfelt apology, explaining that you've make a serious mistake, that you take full responsibility for the mistake, and that you understand how terribly you've inconvenienced the families you serve. In addition, you should explain how you will be sure this doesn't happen again.

b) A press spokesperson for the organization should say, "It's simply not correct to say that we're running way behind."

c) The person running the office that made the mistake should say, "I know that there are parents who are upset that they haven’t gotten a letter yet. Rest assured they will by the end of the week, and we have committed to parents we will work to get this done earlier next year.”

d) Both B and C

If you answered d), you should look into a position in the press office at the New York City Department of Education. It's a growth industry, and I heard the pay's alright.

June 06, 2008

Isn't It Ironic? Bonuses for NYC Administrators at 4 "F" and 5 "D" Schools

chimp_scratching_head.jpg
Administrators at four New York City schools that received F’s on their Progress Reports, and five that earned D’s, are eligible for bonuses, which range from $5,500 to $15,000 for principals and from $2,750 to $7,500 for assistant principals. One of my favorite haiku pretty much sums up this story:

Amateur Night's spozed
to be at the Apollo
not at Tweed courthouse

-Anonymous 7:50 AM

June 05, 2008

Move Over Grey's Anatomy! Thursday Night TV With Joel Klein

McDreamy? McSteamy? You decide.

June 05, 2008

A Texas Tall Tale Remembered, and Demolished, One More Time

Paige%2002-23-04.jpg
In December 2000, the New York Times introduced us to the president elect's choice for Secretary of Education, a former football coach with a penchant for "snake-, lizard-, ostrich- or alligator-skin boots." In that article, Jacques Steinberg reported that under his leadership as the superintendent of the Houston Independent School District, Rod Paige "helped nudge test scores steadily upward in the Houston district, which is largely black and Hispanic. It now ranks among the highest-performing in the state." Houston, the commentators cooed, was nothing short of a miracle. In 2002, the district won the first Broad Prize for Urban Education.

By 2003, the press - and the Texas Education Agency - started looking more closely at Houston's results. In the Times first article on the Houston miracle, "Questions on Data Cloud Luster of Houston Schools," Diana Schemo wrote, "Now, some here are questioning whether the miracle may have been smoke and mirrors, at least on the high school level. And they are suggesting that perhaps Houston is a model of how the focus on school accountability can sometimes go wrong, driving administrators to alter data or push students likely to mar a school's profile -- through poor attendance or low test scores -- out the back door."

Ten days later, the Times editorial page wrote that Paige "owes it to the country to share his thoughts on how this happened and what it means." In an interview with the Times editorial board a few days later, Paige defended his record. Gains in student achievement were real and "still standing," though he said ''there probably was'' a dropout problem.

But the cat was out of the bag. By December the Times had acquired test score data - both on the Texas TAAS and the nationally normed Stanford tests - and established that Houston's state test score gains were enormously inflated. In other words, Houston's sizable gains on the Texas test largely evaporated on the Stanford 9. In August 2004, 60 Minutes ran a segment on the Texas Miracle. When the Dallas Morning News uncovered widespread cheating in Houston late in 2004, it appeared that the game was finally over.

In this month's issue of Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, a new study by UT-Austin professor Julian Vasquez-Heilig and Linda Darling-Hammond, "Accountability Texas-Style: The Progress and Learning of Urban Minority Students in a High-Stakes Testing Context," revisits the Houston miracle by analyzing years of student-level test score and graduation data (1995-2002). There's no version up on the web yet, but here are some key findings:

* Growth on scores on TAAS exam outpaced scores on the Stanford exam. This appears to be prima facie evidence of test score inflation.

* Low-scoring students were excluded from taking the TAAS, both through special education and language exemptions and grade retention.

* A key strategy for improving test scores involved retaining students in 9th grade so they would not sit for the TAAS exit exam in 10th grade. At its peak, 30% of 9th graders were retained for one or more years. Some students were kept in 9th grade for two years, and then skipped to 11th grade so they could avoid the exit test. When more students were retained, unsurprisingly, accountability ratings went up.

* While minuscule dropout rates were reported, only a third of students were graduating in Houston in 5 years or less.

Take home lessons? If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.

June 04, 2008

Should You Count on Diplomas Count?

dc2008-cover-toc.jpg
Ed Week's Diplomas Count report is out today, as is a warning from four distinguished academics that its figures are "exceedingly inaccurate." And having read the two papers below, I have to agree. The following is the statement issued by Jim Heckman, Paul LaFontaine, Larry Mishel, and Joydeep Roy:

In our examination of the data and methodologies available to estimate high school graduation rates we have found that insights can be gained from household surveys and from administrative data on student enrollment and diplomas granted. However, we find the measures of graduation rates in Education Week’s Diploma Counts project, computed from diploma and enrollment data, to be exceedingly inaccurate. The main problem is the assumption that the number of students enrolled in 9th grade is the same as the number of students entering high school. This assumption artificially lowers the estimates of current graduation rates, especially for minorities who are more likely to be retained (repeat 9th grade). This measure also artificially reduces the growth of the graduation rate over time because the practice of grade retention has grown over time, again, especially among minorities.

The resulting errors are sufficiently large to artificially lower the graduation rate by 9 percentage points overall and by 14 percentage points for minorities. Grade retention also differs sharply across states and localities, distorting geographic comparisons. Last, these measures do not reflect the ultimate graduation rates of a cohort of students because the data do not capture diplomas provided by adult education and other sources than schools.

You can find Mishel and Roy's paper, published today in the Education Policy Analysis Archives, here and Heckman and LaFontaine's paper here.

June 04, 2008

Why Has the Education Press Missed the Boat? The Case of Small Schools

missed-the-boat.jpg
With the release of Scott McClellan's tell-all, everyone's been asking whether the press did its due diligence on the Iraq war. Closer to home, last week's Newsweek article provides similar occasion for us to reflect on the press coverage of small schools over the last six years.

Let me first throw in my prejudices about small schools - I like them. I followed the first wave of small schools that opened in the 1990s, and was thrilled when the Gates Foundation put up millions of dollars for the second wave. And I am willing to believe that students will be more attached to school in smaller schools.

All that said, what should we make of the endless parade of glowing stories about how much better small schools are doing than their predecessors? If any of these reporters had perused the basic stats, they would have uncovered that these schools are not serving the same population. (Needless to say, in my excitement about the Gates Foundation's grant back in 2003, I did not anticipate that small schools would have the effect of clearing out the old students, replacing them with higher achieving ones, and pushing the leftover students into increasingly crowded large schools.)

Over the course of the year, I've made tables comparing the new and old populations at three different NYC high schools that have been converted into small schools: Evander Childs High School in the Bronx, Bushwick High School in Brooklyn, and now Morris High School in the Bronx, the subject of the Newsweek article. As stunning as the differences between the old large and new small school populations is the fact that few reporters covering small schools (save Sam Freedman, who sadly wrote his last column this morning) have bothered to ask if these populations were different, and if so, why.

Why has the press missed the boat? I'm not sure. Here are some ideas:

* Math is Hard: Reporters are trained to write and report, not to analyze data. It's unsurprising that they've avoided the city's statistical treasure troves. But that answer is unsatisfying to me - these are all bright people.

* Positive Story Starvation: Jay Mathews offers a different answer in reflecting on reporting about KIPP, "I understand why we education reporters try to make KIPP sound like more than it is. We are starved for good news about low-income schools. KIPP is an encouraging story, so we are tempted to gush rather than report. We don't ask all the questions we should." Maybe this explains some of the puff pieces, but still falls short of a full explanation.

* All City Kids are the Same: Perhaps the problem runs deeper than training and optimism. Too many people assume that because the kids in the old school were black and brown and poor, and those in the new school are as well, they must be the same.

* Everyone Loves Individualization: skoolboy weighs in with this thought: "The small school model is so appealing because it taps into a variety of modern narratives. Small schools are personal, provide more customized (i.e., middle-class) educations, and therefore can compensate for the breakdown of families and other social institutions in central cities. In this view, whoever is served by these schools is better off than they were before, and those who were in the schools before just get ignored."

* Power and Money Talk: Small schools are backed by big foundations. Money buys, and helps to influence, evaluations conducted by firms that are contract dependent. Money also buys PR - and a lot of money buys the best PR money can buy.

Any thoughts?

The table below shows the characteristics of the entering 9th graders at Morris High School before small schools started opening there, and the characteristics of 9th graders at the new small schools: the School for Excellence, the High School for Violin and Dance, Bronx Leadership Academy, Bronx International High School and the Morris Academy for Collaborative Studies. Particularly notable are the lower concentrations of full-time special education students, students qualifying for free lunch, students who were below grade level in reading and math, and English Language Learners (with the exception of Bronx International, which is a school specifically for ELL students). If you click over to the links above, you'll see this was also the case with Evander Childs and Bushwick High School.

Characteristics of Entering 9th Graders, Morris High School and New Small Schools

TABLE.JPG

June 03, 2008

In Which Mike Petrilli and I Play Debbie and Diane

Mike Petrilli and I have a friendly off-blog scuffle at least once a week, and here's our latest quarrel. Over at Flypaper, Mike wrote, "After arguing about race for forty years, many of which saw an expansion of the achievement gap between white and black students, even the left-left coast is agreeing that student performance is more important than the racial make-up of a classroom."

Here are my two cents on this false choice: Even if you only care about student achievement, racial composition is important. Put simply, it's more difficult to attract and retain high-quality teachers in schools that are racially isolated. There are oodles of papers on this topic, but here is a good one. Mike has more to say about this point, so I'll let him take it from here...

June 03, 2008

How Much Would Paying Kids for Test Scores Cost?

In the midst of this budget debacle, along comes an estimate of the cost of NYC's student incentive program at full scale - i.e. if all students in grades 4-7 were eligible to receive up to $500 per year. Even a 50% success rate would cost a cool $90 million dollars - not far off from the $99 million dollars in budget cuts that will be distributed to New York City schools unless the city ponies up.

tcrecord_table.jpg

June 01, 2008

All Purpose Equity!

Klein-Clean.jpg
Everyone loves equity - the US Department of Education, the New York City Department of Education, insert your hometown Department of Education here. If you've got a shaky initiative in mind, best to back it up with the equity line.

Certainly that's the strategy Joel Klein has used in New York City. Want to change the admissions process for gifted and talented programs? It's about equity! (Even when doing so shuts out poor kids.) Want to close down comprehensive high schools? It's about equity! (Even if the most disadvantaged kids can't access those new small schools.) Want to use dollars that the state legislature specifically earmarked for the most disadvantaged kids to plug holes in a budget you cut yourself? It's about equity! (Even if the number of central employees has increased by 18% since 2004 - a jobs program for the Ivy League.)

When it comes to school funding, what does it mean to treat students "equitably?" Does equity imply treating each student the same by providing each student the same level of funding? Or does equity require a recognition that students bring different levels of disadvantage to school, and as a result, disadvantaged students must be treated differently in order to be treated equitably?

In 2007, when the city was bulldozing through its "Fair Student Funding" program, NYC Chancellor Joel Klein argued that educational equity required differential treatment. Poor students face formidable obstacles to school success, Klein explained, and the allocation of tax-levied funds in New York City should reflect that reality.

It was also in this compensatory spirit that the remedy emerging from New York's adequacy suit - now known as the Contracts for Excellence - was designed. Three rules were applied to these funds. First, these funds must be spent on six program areas, including class size reduction, time on task, teacher and principal quality initiatives, full day pre-kindergarten, middle and high school restructuring, and model programs for English Language Learners. Second, these funds must be spent on those students with the greatest educational needs. Finally - and most relevant to this budget debate - these funds must be used to supplement, not supplant, the city's school funding allocations. The idea is that these dollars represent additional investments New York City's most disadvantaged children.

This budget cycle, fairness and equity, according to Joel Klein, require universalism - specifically, a universal budget cut - not differential treatment. The city has cut tax-levied funds to all schools, which will be offset by Contracts for Excellence funds for the neediest schools. But the city's more advantaged schools are facing substantial cuts because they won't receive more state money. Joel Klein is now arguing that an "equitable" solution to this budget problem is for the state to release the restrictions on these Contracts for Excellence funds so that all schools will take a 1.4% cut. And he claims, with remarkable chutzpah, that it is the state's fault, not the city's fault for cutting budgets in the face of a projected $4.5 billion budget surplus, that some schools will suffer more than others.

Ultimately, if equity can be called upon to support any action - even those that nakedly reallocate dollars set aside to serve the city's most disadvantaged students - then equity means nothing at all.

Advertisement

Archives

Recent Comments

  • Christopher Wong: As the filmmaker responsible for "Whatever It Takes", I also read more
  • britney: im still paying off my loan for my education, it read more
  • ed: i love reading your blog whenever i can, i dont read more
  • Johnny Acejo: Now teens are being whores and sluts. read more
  • max: Great post.People do not realize that education is the best read more

Most Viewed
On Education Week