Interesting day at AEI on Wednesday. Hosted a lively discussion on "Education 2012: What the Election Year Will Mean for Education Policy," looking at what the year ahead holds for education in Washington and nationally. I was joined by a wickedly smart crew that featured Democrats for Ed Reform chief Joe Williams; ED's Peter Cunningham; Katherine Haley, key aide to House Speaker John Boehner; influential GOP pollster and policy advisor David Winston; and Ed Week's crack political reporter Alyson Klein. The occasion for the event was the official launch of my new book (edited with my colleague Andrew Kelly), Carrots, Sticks, and the Bully Pulpit: Lessons from a Half-Century of Federal Efforts to Improve America's Schools. (You can find it here). Here are some highlights:

Regarding the Obama administration's proposal to grant NCLB waivers to states who shift from subgroups to "super-subgroups"--allowing schools to make AYP based on the overall performance of their most vulnerable kids, rather than by requiring specific performance levels for a laundry list of demographic groupings--Williams wryly said he's hoping to duck the hullabaloo because the emphasis on racial subgroups is the "linchpin" that glues the DFER reformers together with their civil rights allies. Cunningham implied that ED had little to do with the President's demand that states raise the compulsory education age to 18; that the idea came "from the White House." He told observers to not jump the gun in judging ED's response to waivers, urging them to await the Secretary's announcement before reaching any conclusions.

Klein said that 99 percent of the Hill sources she talks to think NCLB reauth will wait at least for 2013, that key spending questions won't be sorted out until the post-election lame duck session, and that recent years have seen education lose its bipartisan patina and become "just another [partisan] issue."

Winston told a room full of edu-enthusiasts that their focus on waivers, Common Core, ESEA/NCLB , turnaround models, and the rest amount to a fascination with process that doesn't register with voters--who want to know the impact on education outcomes, jobs, and the economy. Haley acknowledged that the House Republicans failed to take Secretary Duncan up on the opening he created with his November 2010 call to embrace the "new normal" and focus on getting more bang for our buck in schooling, largely because the new majority's huge freshmen class was still finding its bearings and got caught up in manifold other debates.

There was broad agreement on the value of the transparency that NCLB brought to outcomes but serious disagreement on what reauth should look alike. There was broad agreement that the action is shifting to governors. Cunningham said that Secretary Duncan routinely talks with Republican governors like Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, and John Kasich; urged Hill Republicans to talk to GOP governors when judging the administration's education proposals; and opined, "Governors will be in the driver seat in 2012, and that's the way it should be."

I asked the participants what we've seen the feds get right this past decade when it comes to schooling. Haley cited the transparency produced by NCLB. Williams flagged the attention and energy that infuse efforts to improve schooling. Cunningham pointed to three things: promoting transparency, using the bully pulpit to start conversations with lagging states, and using "carrots" like Race to the Top to catalyze reform.

Those responses starkly illustrated the value of the insights and lessons sketched in Carrots, Sticks, and the Bully Pulpit. Featuring contributions penned by thinkers and doers including Ron Ferguson, Mike Smith, Larry Berger, Charlie Barone, Maris Vinovskis, Mike Casserly, Checker Finn, Mark Schneider, Liz DeBray, Pat McGuinn, Jennifer Wallner, Paul Manna, Josh Dunn, and Jane Hannaway, the book examines what we've learned about what Uncle Sam does and doesn't do well when it comes to education innovation, accountability, equity, and research. The authors extract lessons from litigation, efforts targeted on urban systems, edu-lawmaking, NCLB implementation, initiatives designed to spur innovation, and more. More than anything else, the book offers a chance to focus not only on what we might like the federal government in schooling to do but also on the question of what Uncle Sam can actually do well given the shape of our federal system. And our conversation about what's ahead in 2012 reminded me once again how much such thinking can usefully temper and inform our debates.

Posted by Rick Hess at 9:03 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

For the past year, Bob Sommers served as newly elected Ohio Governor John Kasich's education advisor and helped to spearhead the Governor's reform efforts. This put Sommers in the thick of things during a year when Ohio enacted an ambitious agenda, including legislation that curtailed collective bargaining (and that was overturned in a heated referendum last fall). Effective yesterday, Bob officially departed his post to return to the school management business. He is forming a new company, StudentmindED Schools, to help launch and scale more great schools. Especially given that Ohio's been through some dramatic developments, I thought it worth checking in with Bob to get his thoughts and observations as he moves on. Here's what he had to say.

Rick Hess: What do you see as the agenda for Ohio school reform unfolding in 2012?
Bob Sommers: It will be a smaller agenda because we moved 13 out of 15 major reforms we wanted last year. And, frankly, the system has to implement some things. But one big push this year will be around data quality. The P-20 data pipeline is not very exciting, but we have got to get better data from pre-kindergarten all the way through to the workforce. And get greater clarity around how the system is working. How many kids are kindergarten-ready? Who's doing a good job and who isn't? How many kids are reading by the end of third grade? Out of college, are they getting employed? Are they making good wages? Are they living in Ohio? Are they being good citizens? So, that's a big one. It's greater transparency around performance and cost-effectiveness. Along with that one is improving school report cards. Right now, we have a convoluted report card system that can label a school with a fifty percent rate of failure as "honors with distinction." That just doesn't work. We need a much more understandable report card.

RH: Last year, what were the two or three most significant reforms that passed?
BS: We completely removed the cap on charters. We quadrupled vouchers. We got the school ranking system developed. School rankings, I would put up there in the top two. We now rank all the schools and school districts. And that has really changed the conversations. You now get people asking, "What do you mean my elementary in my wealthy school district is 1,100th out of 4,000 schools? I thought it was the best school in America."

RH: How big a deal was the defeat on Question Two [the referendum which overturned Ohio collective bargaining reform] last November?
BS: The people spoke on the issue of collective bargaining rights. They didn't appreciate collective bargaining being attacked. So the people spoke. From an education standpoint, though, there were very few things that we were looking for in changes in employment, compensation, and teacher relationships that we didn't get [in separate legislation]. We eliminated seniority pretty much up and down the line. We got options in for performance-based pay. We got a teacher evaluation system that includes student achievement.

You know, politics is like farming. You can't harvest unless you sell and cultivate. And we just didn't do a good enough job of explaining to the public the problem that we tried to solve. The public didn't see the problem that we saw...We knew we had to have more flexibility to manage costs. Teachers have a right to collective bargaining over their wages and hours, but they shouldn't be able to bargain class sizes and which curriculum.

RH: What are a couple of key lessons that you take from the defeat on Question 2? And how might those inform the reform effort this year?
BS: We're going to make sure we do a lot better job of explaining the problem we're trying to solve. And to make sure that the public actually sees the problem the same way that we do. That's the big lesson. You've got to go out. You've got to cultivate the fields....And so, a lot of our reforms are around that transparency. Making sure people are crystal clear where they are. And given huge latitude for the local levels to solve those problems that they all know what the problems are. And they can get them fixed.

RH: Is the Governor planning on reintroducing any elements from Senate Bill 5 [the collective bargaining bill] this year?
BS: No, I don't expect so. The Governor is aggressive. But he's also very respectful to the people. It's the people's government. And that's not a company answer. That's a genuine John Kasich answer. He pushes hard. He pushed to do the things, you know, to balance an eight billion dollar hole in the budget. He's made some really tough reforms. He doesn't mind taking a beating. But when it's clear that the public doesn't want something, then that's the way it is.

RH: How have the politics of school reform changed in Ohio over the past year? What's different this year than from where you were a year ago?
BS: I think it's the classic "The more reform you get done, the harder the status quo pushes back." The people that don't get it, they fight back. They're not bad people, but they're just traditionalists...You make major changes. It takes time to implement. And so, there's a pressure to slow down. When you have a lot of the things that we have done in the way of teacher evaluation, the up and coming changes in assessments, the Common Core, closing poor-performing schools--there are just a whole lot of things that take time to implement.

RH: Where is the Governor and where are the Republicans in the legislature on the Common Core at this point?
BS: I can't speak necessarily for the legislature as a whole. But, I know the Governor is very supportive of Common Core. [State superintendent] Stan Heffner is very supportive of Common Core...Now, Ohio historically has had better than average standards. So, it isn't as dramatic a change as it would be for some states. But we're still going to go through some significant updates.

RH: And what's the status of Race to the Top implementation right now?
BS: If you believe the feds, we're like number two or three in the country in the quality of engagement. And I think it's true. The disappointing thing--and the Governor talks about this all the time--he says, "Only half our schools are on board. What happened to the other half?"
When you look at Race to the Top, and you look at the Kasich administration's reform agenda, you can't tell them apart. You just can't. And so at the half [of schools] that [aren't on board with Race to the Top], it's the case that the unions wouldn't agree, or that the school board wouldn't agree, or the administration didn't care, or whatever. But now, because of the Governor's legislation, they're going to have to implement all of the reforms anyway, just without the extra Race to the Top money.

RH: Have you felt like the Race to the Top implementation has made it easier to push the Governor's agenda?
BS: There were times when somebody would say [of the Governor Kasich's agenda], "It's those terrible right wing Republicans [who are pushing these ideas]!" And I don't think Obama would have appreciated being called a right wing conservative. So yes, it was, it was valuable.

RH: As far as implementing the reforms, what are the key challenges?
BS: Number one, educators think the world is a non-competitive, fair place. And it isn't. And if we're going to have our kids ready, they need to recognize that effort doesn't matter, results do. So, that's the first thing. There's also a lack of clarity in the education community of how important it is to be aggressive in preparing kids for life. Number three is that school and district leaders get stuck in tradition. There are a million things that there are absolutely no laws against. But people think there are.

RH: What's an example?
BS: Blended learning. It's a pretty phenomenal approach that has a lot of promise. People say, "Well, we can't do that. It's against the law." But we've been doing it in the state of Ohio since 2003. There are no laws against it. It's just a lack of willingness to go beyond tradition. I think school boards are more obstructionists than visionaries. The other thing is a lack of focus on performance and cost effectiveness. You've got to get better performance at a lower price...And oddly enough, it's rarely the law that's the problem. And it's rarely cash. But that's what everybody complains about. But I don't think those are the problems.

RH: Ohio is famous for its uneven charter school sector. How big a concern in this?
BS:People aren't willing to take on [some of the bad operators] for any number of political reasons. But last year we put in place some of the toughest school closure laws in the country. And we're starting to close schools. We do have a problem with sponsor quality. In Michigan, where I operated before, you have universities serving as sponsors, and a university has a reputation to uphold that goes beyond the charter schools. So, they really want the charter schools that they sponsor to be good quality because they're an extension of their larger image. In Ohio, we don't have that. The sponsor network is pretty weak. So, that's a huge problem, but I do think we've made great progress in correcting that.

RH: Last question. You've been working in K-12 a long time, and in a lot of roles. What surprised you most about tackling K-12 improvement from Columbus?
BS: The thing that surprised me shouldn't have been a surprise. After all, I spent 15 years with the Department of Ed and so should have known it. But I've been away for a long time. It's that state level reform cannot be on the aggressive leading edge simply because you're moving a whole state. Aggressive leading edge reform only occurs at the school, school district, or charter level. And that's part of the reason I'm going back there. I'd much prefer to be on the extreme edge of reform. And I think that's maybe as it should be. It's one thing to have an individual school try an extreme reform and fail. It's another one to do that on an entire state. The speed with which reform is possible at a state level is slower than I had hoped.

Posted by Rick Hess at 7:31 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Hidy all, I'm back. Lots of excitement while I was away, including the bizarre GOP primary season and the President's SOTU speech.

For what it's worth, I thought the SOTU's seven-minute education section was embarrassing. The President could've said that NCLB waivers are a poor substitute for legislation, and signaled his eagerness to get a deal done. He could've said that dollars are tight and that states need to live up to their Race to the Top (RTT) promises or the feds will yank our money back. He could've echoed his Secretary of Education's observation that we live in a "new normal," where it's less about spending more than it is about getting more bang from each buck. He could've been classy and congratulated governors for the bold reforms enacted last year in states like Indiana and Ohio.

Instead, he vapidly, vaguely gave marching orders to the states (raise the compulsory education age, spend more on K-12, reform teacher policies, spend more on higher ed) and to the colleges (keep your prices down, or else). Given that the states actually have their own elected executives, it seemed a little odd--as opposed to, you know, sketching what he'd like to see Washington do.

This all reminded me that Obama's edu-reformism really should be graded on a curve. After all, spending nearly $800 billion on an unprecedented bender gave him a lot of juice. We spent north of $100 billion on education in the stimulus, of which the administration got Congress to divert around 5 percent into the President's pet reforms (RTT, i3, and School Improvement Grants), and got fawning press. For all the accolades, the President's agenda the past two years has been mostly running on the fumes of the '09 stimulus. Absent that pile of fresh cash, the President has looked a whole lot less impressive (remember his baffling promise of a billion dollar K-12 bonus if Congress reauthorized NCLB by his target date?).

Forget the SOTU. What's he going to do--when it comes to federal challenges like NCLB, streamlining federal edu-regs, the paper burdens of special ed, federal research, fixing "gainful employment," rethinking federal aid for higher ed, or any of the other big challenges--without a wad of funny money to throw around?

This all matters, a lot, given what's happening in the Republican primaries. Mitt Romney is getting banged around by an unpopular, undisciplined Newt Gingrich. Now, few Republican observers think Gingrich can actually win. (If Gingrich did somehow pull it off, and was free to spend the summer and fall hectoring and lecturing the American public, President Obama could well win forty states in November.) That said, the mere fact that the jury-rigged, cash-starved Gingrich campaign overtook Romney in South Carolina and could win Florida is bad news for Romney. If Romney can barely fend off Gingrich, what's going to happen when Obama's lavishly funded, seasoned campaign team sets to work?

Right now the Iowa electronic markets give the President about a 60 percent shot of winning reelection. If I had to bet, at this juncture, I think Obama's chances are even better than that. There's an excellent chance we're looking at five more years. While the President's dialed-back ambitions have been a nice change, especially given that we're drowning in debt, it'd be nice to know that his game plan entails something besides platitudes and meaningless marching orders for the states.

Posted by Rick Hess at 7:47 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Note: Neerav Kingsland, chief strategy officer for New Schools for New Orleans, is guest posting this week.

An Open Letter to Urban Superintendents in the United State of America Part V

The Details: How to Develop a Charter District

New Schools for New Orleans (where I work) and Public Impact will be publishing a more extensive guide on how to develop charter districts in the coming months. If you'd like an early copy, email me (neerav@nsno.org) and I'll send you one. But the highlights are listed below. To develop a successful charter district, you need to execute on three primary strategies:

Govern Aggressively and Fairly

• First, build a state or local accountability system that allows schools to be compared on an apples-to-apples basis. Define the bottom 5 percent with this metric.


• Next, create a new government entity with the authority to (a) takeover failing schools from districts and (b) authorize new charter schools. This will give you the pressure and cover you need to be aggressive.


• Then rigorously approve charters. Maintain a high authorization bar. Give the schools you do approve free facilities. Close failing schools. Repeat for five years.

Attract and Develop Talent

• Start by doing what everyone else misses: encourage your best talent in traditional schools to convert to charter schools. Yes, relinquish power on your best. Remember, you believe educators will do better with fewer constraints. This is one of the untold stories of New Orleans: the first wave of charter school development was led by veteran New Orleans educators.


• Then utilize alternative human capital providers to grow your talent base.


• Eventually, once the recruitment pipelines are where they need to be, begin focusing on development. Allow entrepreneurs to develop training programs. Put pressure on education schools, or just start new ones.

Promote Charter Growth

• First, as noted above, begin converting your best district schools to charter schools. When you conduct your 5 Year Rule analysis, you will ideally observe increased achievement gains in these schools due to real autonomy.


• Then work with non-profits to build an incubation pipeline for new charter organizations.


• Last, develop and recruit CMOs--organizations capable of operating multiple charter schools. Long-term, these organizations will be key drivers in developing charter markets, as once they mature they can scale at quicker rates than pure incubation.

Alright, that was nine bullet points. I cringe at how much was left out and how many assumptions went unjustified. As noted above a more extensive guide will be available soon.

Also, right now New Orleans is the only charter district in the country. I imagine we'll know more when you all, Superintendents, create some more. If you haven't been convinced to do so yet, well, here goes:

Concluding Thoughts: Brimstone Edition

Superintendents, I've tried to maintain a measured tone. But let me end with some (relative) fire and brimstone.

First, you wrong parents when you deny them the choice of where, and how, to educate their children (even worse to arrest them). A family will make few more important decisions than where to send their child to school. It is a sign of hubris that you would presume to tell a family which school is best for their child.

Second, only the naïve try to predict--and develop centralized rules for--what will be best for every student in every situation. You occupy a political position far removed from the actual work of educating children. At best, you will mandate mediocrity. It is a sign of hubris to think that you can mandate top down solutions from a bureaucratic post.

Third, it is worthwhile to study other industries. In doing this, you will notice that most industries consist of this formula: entrepreneurs develop solutions to meet people's needs; soon enough, a market forms; then government develops laws that set the guidelines for this market; then government creates regulatory bodies to oversee this market; and then non-governmental entities do the work and continually innovate to better meet the needs of the people the market serves.

Some call this capitalism, but this is a misnomer. Rather, call it innovation-ism--in that it is a system that is designed to promote, reward, and scale innovation. If you think that somehow education is different--and that your educational ideas will continually outperform a market place of ideas--well, this is a sign of incredible hubris.

In sum, dear Reformers, beware of your own hubris. Neither you, nor anyone else, is as smart as your strategy requires.

Ultimate Concluding Thoughts: Optimism Addition

Alright, I can't end on that. Superintendents, I like you too much. And you all did not build the institutions that you inherited. So let's talk about the opportunity that is before you.

From 1900 to 1970, the United States led the world in educational opportunities by creating a system of government run primary and secondary schools and a more decentralized system of post-secondary institutions. Today, our universities remain the envy of most nations. Our primary and secondary schools do not.

How to change this?

By harnessing the greatest strengths of our nation: our immense talent and entrepreneurial spirit. If New Orleans is any indication, charter districts will do exactly this.

What has occurred in New Orleans may or may not transform how our country serves its most at-risk children. Superintendents, this all depends on you. But I believe the principles of the New Orleans system are sound: government should delegate school operations to nonprofits and hold these organizations accountable. Great schools should expand. Failing schools should close. Parents should have choices in where to send their children to school. Educators should have choices in where they work.

By themselves, none of these principles are particularly radical. Together, however, they provide a potential roadmap to transform urban educational systems across our nation.

Superintendents, the future of our educational system thus perhaps comes down to this: in your hearts and minds, which identity will prevail--that of the Reformer or that of the Relinquisher?

Time will tell.

Take care,

Neerav

--Neerav Kingsland

Posted by Neerav Kingsland at 7:31 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Note: Neerav Kingsland, chief strategy officer for New Schools for New Orleans, is guest posting this week.

An Open Letter to Urban Superintendents in the United States of America Part IV

The 5% Rule and The 5 Year Rule: How to Prudently Grow a High-Performing Charter District

Superintendents, in recommending that you become Relinquishers and transition your school systems to charter districts, I hope to recommend great change with a sufficient amount of humility--especially given the potential pitfalls discussed yesterday. So let me introduce you to two rules that may mitigate the many risks in developing charter school districts.

The 5% Rule

The rule is simple. It states: urban school districts with early stage charter sectors should charter roughly 5 percent of their systems a year--ideally phasing out the bottom 5 percent of schools in the system at the same time. Chartering at a far greater pace, say 20-30 percent a year, greatly increases risk of failure by putting too much stress on government regulators, charter operators, and talent pipelines.

As it happens, in New Orleans we received a federal Investing in Innovation (i3) grant to execute the 5% Rule over the next five years. During this period, we aim to replace the bottom 25 percent of schools in New Orleans with high-performing charter schools.

What would this look like in other cities? See below:

So for a mid-size school district, like Newark, you need to charter 3.7 schools a year to meet the 5% Rule. For a larger urban district, like Memphis, you need to charter 10.45 schools a year. And for one of the largest districts in the nation, Chicago, you need to charter 33.75 schools a year. All in all, the 5% Rule appears to be doable--and perhaps even somewhat conservative in high-quality but smaller charter markets such as Newark.

In summary: Given all the potential pitfalls in growing a charter district, the 5% Rule sets limits on the annual pace of early stage charter market growth.

The 5 Year Rule

The 5 Year Rule is as simple as the 5% Rule. It states: the 5% Rule should be executed in 5 year increments. The 5 Year Rule requires Relinquishers to analyze the progress of the power transfer before marshaling on. At the end of five years, if the charter sector is underperforming the traditional system, then put the brakes on market growth. In subsequent years, grow your top charter performers to replace your low charter performers until quality is more consistent, then proceed onward. Washington, DC would have benefited greatly from The 5 Year Rule.

In summary: The 5 Year Rule triggers an automatic market share cap if the charter sector underperforms the traditional sector.

Today's Chart of the Day

The above chart details New Orleans charter growth from 2007 to 2011--a more stable period than the first wave of chartering that took place right after Hurricane Katrina. Charter growth averaged 5.6 percent over this five year period. Note that we expect this trend to continue for at least the next three years.

The five year period from 2007 to 2011 show a city roughly abiding by both The 5% Rule and The 5 Year Rule. You'll also notice that the 2008-2012 period will be closer to 7 percent growth. As a charter district further develops, growth will likely accelerate as capacity builds.

So would-be Relinquishers, perhaps the transition could look like this:

• Phase I: 5% a year for 5 years (25% cumulative market share)
• Phase II: 7% a year for 5 years (60% cumulative market share)
• Phase III: 10% a year for 3 years (90% cumulative market share)

Or something like that.

But the point is this: charter districts can be developed in 10-15 years. That could be the work of you and one successor.

This is feasible, especially if you happen to be a thoughtful and visionary superintendent.

Part V--the last section of the letter--tomorrow.

Take care,

Neerav

--Neerav Kingsland

Posted by Neerav Kingsland at 7:49 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Note: Neerav Kingsland, chief strategy officer for New Schools for New Orleans, is guest posting this week.

An Open Letter to Urban Superintendents in the United States of America Part III

Why Charter Districts Can Work--and Why They Might Not

Superintendents, I predict that charter districts will lead to better execution, increased attraction of talent, and more innovation. I've written about these positive attributes elsewhere, so I'll briefly summarize below. But I also want to devote a significant portion of this section to exploring why charter districts might not work. Developing charter districts poses serious risks to student learning--and these risks must be considered.

Why Charter Districts Can Work: A Brief and Limited Overview

Monopolistic employers lead to dysfunctional labor relations: When there is only one employer in town, and it happens to be poorly run, labor relations will get ugly quick. Thick contracts are the norm (have a cocktail, sit back, and read this). I don't blame the unions for their contracts--it is a response to a poorly set-up system.

Attracting the Top Third: The highest performing countries draw teachers from the top third of college graduates. All Hail Finland. Research shows charter schools attract teachers from more selective colleges. More here. Fighting over state mandated teacher evaluations is, in the long run, a waste of time. Just open more charter schools.

Innovation requires experimentation: Traditional school districts retain a monopoly of method which is equally as harmful as their monopoly of operation. A diverse charter school sector will experiment more frequently than a monolithic bureaucracy. The work coming out of Uncommon Schools (here, here, here) is mind-blowing. Want more: here, here, here, here, here. Charter schools innovate better than districts.

Why It Could Get Worse: Potential Pitfalls of Charter Districts

Terrible charter schools poorly educate children throughout our country. Charter school districts could fail as well. Superintendents, trust me when I say I think about this incessantly. Some possible reasons for failure include:

New Orleans is not Replicable: The New Orleans charter district formed in part because of a natural disaster. The city attracted extremely entrepreneurial and risk-taking individuals. Perhaps there can only be one such place. The success of smaller pilot endeavors is not always replicable. Given that New Orleans is the only true example of a charter district, we should be cautious about scaling this unique situation.

Poor Regulation: Charter school districts are not free markets. Governments approve plans for schools and set government mandated performance targets. If the government authorizes weak schools and fails to close schools that don't serve kids--well, Ohio serves as major warning. Furthermore, in newer markets, ill-intentioned first movers could dominate the market if not constrained. Poor regulation could lead to worse educational outcomes.

Culture: People are unpredictable. Perhaps the move to charter schools will alienate educators. Perhaps the trend of charters attracting teachers from more selective colleges collapses. Who knows? School systems include thousands of adults with different histories and beliefs, making behavioral prediction very difficult.

International Comparisons: The highest-performing national educational systems do not utilize charter schools as a primary strategy. Given that I think charter districts will work, I view this as a monumental national opportunity. But the global paucity of charter districts should give Relinquishers pause.

Together, all of these pitfalls warrant immense caution. Mitigating these risks is of great importance. We should not create charter districts overnight, and we should prepare for some failure. This will be discussed tomorrow.

Let Me End with a Chart

Jimmy Carter, an unheralded Relinquisher, deregulated the railroad industry via the Staggers Act. This led to better execution (ability to charge market rates and enter into open contracts), more innovation (aluminum freight wagons and more fuel efficient engines increased the number of ton-miles per gallon of fuel by 38 percent), and attracted more effective people into the industry (Warren Buffet became a major investor in railroads after deregulation).

At the time of the Staggers Act, most other countries operated nationalized freight railroad systems. Relinquishing the control of freight railroad systems to non-governmental entities was not an international best practice. Today, the United States has one the most effective freight systems in the world.

Reformers--here's a question to mull over with a glass of wine after a hard day: what would have happened had Jimmy Carter simply tried to reform our government operated freight system? Would similar results have followed?

And one last thing: in the above chart, doesn't the productivity line plotted between 1964 and 1980 look uncannily like the line plotting NAEP scores of 17 year olds between 1971 and 2008?

It does.

We need a Staggers Act for education. With your large influence, perhaps one of you will call for such legislation.

I hope you do.

Part IV tomorrow.

Sincerely,

Neerav

--Neerav Kingsland

Posted by Neerav Kingsland at 7:46 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Note: Neerav Kingsland, chief strategy officer for New Schools for New Orleans, is guest posting this week.

An Open Letter to Urban Superintendents in the United States of America Part II

The Proof is in the Etouffe: 75% of Rigorously Studied Urban Charter Markets Work

There is a paucity of high-quality studies on urban charter markets. In my review of the research, I found rigorous studies on twelve cities (I only used studies included in this 2011 meta study or in the CREDO 16 state study). This limited sample size makes the results more illustrative than definitive.

But, for what it's worth, here's the headline: charter schools outperformed traditional schools in every urban city except for Washington, DC; Chicago; and Philadelphia--and in all three of these cities results were similar across charter and traditional schools.

Superintendents--especially those of you who are Reformers--this research, admittedly limited, should give you pause. In 75 percent of cities studied, Relinquisher strategies proved effective. And in the other 25 percent of cities, results were no worse.

Results of the Nation's First Charter School District--New Orleans

In 2009, CREDO (the Center for Research on Education Outcomes) conducted a study of charter schools across 16 states. CREDO found that only 17 percent of charter schools outperformed traditional schools. Opponents of charter schools often cite this study as evidence that charter schools should not be spread.

In 2011, we commissioned CREDO to conduct the exact some study in New Orleans, where around 80 percent of students attend charter schools. The results: New Orleans outperformed the previous study by nearly a factor of three (48 percent vs. 17 percent) in terms of the percentage of charter schools outperforming traditional schools. Our high-performing charters outnumbered our poor-performing charters by nearly 2:1.

Some more data: before Hurricane Katrina, 78 percent of public school students in New Orleans attended a school designated as "failing" (as rated by our 2011 state performance standards). In 2011, 40 percent of students attend failing schools. We expect to reduce the percentage to fewer than 5 percent by 2016.

In terms of the percentage of students attending failing schools, that will be 80 percent to 5 percent in a ten-year period.

New Orleans also decreased its performance gaps against state averages by more than half--closing the proficiency performance gap by 13 percentage points from 2005 to 2011. In 2011, the city's schools posted the highest student performance scores to date--maintaining its #1 ranking in growth across the state for the fourth consecutive year.

In summary, the largest charter market in the nation is also one of the most successful. The Relinquishers of New Orleans empowered families and educators to achieve unprecedented gains in student learning.

Other Urban Charter Markets that Work

Rigorous studies conducted on eight other cities--New York, Boston, San Diego, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Denver, Memphis and Nashville--found charter schools to be outperforming traditional schools. However, in each of the cities charters serve less than 10 percent of the student population. As such, the studies tell us much about charter school effectiveness, but less about ability of these charters to scale and serve all students in a city. But, at the very least, these studies show that developing charter markets can increase student achievement across diverse urban areas.

If you are a superintendent of one of the cities, which some of you happen to be, the path to becoming a Relinquisher may be already (partially) paved. If you are not a superintendent in one of those cities, you may wish to study their successes.

Urban Charter Markets that Have Yet to Make a Difference

In Washington, DC, nearly 40 percent of students attend charter schools, but their performance does not significantly differ from the students of traditional schools. Relinquishers, this should give us pause--unlike New Orleans, Washington, DC, greatly increased charter market share with little effect. The city is rich with talent and funding, and yet charter schools deliver mediocre results. Similar results were found in Philadelphia. In Chicago charter schools actually achieved statistically positive results in math, but of the two studies conducted on Chicago, one found a negative effect in reading, so I have included Chicago in this list.

Urban Charter Markets that Don't Work

Rigorous studies that find negative charter school effects in an urban area do not exist. I am sure, however, that charters perform worse than traditional schools in some cities. Still, no rigorous research confirms this. Reformers of all stripes--this might be an avenue worth pursuing to support your case.

In Summary

The research, while limited in scope, demonstrates this: charter markets can work.

Specifically, in New Orleans, the nation's only charter district, relinquishing power to educators and parents triggered what might be the greatest transformation of an urban school district in the modern education era.

Let Me End with a Chart

Now time to get to the chart of the day:

In 1991, Manmohan Singh became Finance Minister in India, a country of a billion people and a thousand languages. In 1992, income began to skyrocket, in large part due to his policies. Singh now serves as the Prime Minister of India.

Manmohan Singh is one of the greatest Relinquishers of the modern world. Over the past 20 years, his work in transferring power to India's citizens--especially its entrepreneurs--improved the well-being of hundreds of millions of Indians and resulted in a near doubling of income over a 15 year period.

The primary strategy Singh used--devolving power away from government operation--can, and should be, applied to our education system as well.

Superintendents, the evidence for relinquishment may be broader than you think.

Part III tomorrow.

Take care,

Neerav

--Neerav Kingsland

Posted by Neerav Kingsland at 7:51 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Note: Neerav Kingsland, chief strategy officer for New Schools for New Orleans, is guest posting this week.

An Open Letter to Urban Superintendents in the United States of America

Part I: Reformers and Relinquishers

Dear Superintendents,

You work immense hours and subject yourself to scathing criticism all in the pursuit of better serving children. I know a few of you--and without fail you are all passionate about your work. In short, I'm a fan. So know that I'm not writing this letter to attack anyone--rather, I aim to offer advice, which I hope some of you accept.

In the following letter I aim to convince you of this: the single most important reform strategy you can undertake is to increase charter school quality and market share in your city--with the ultimate aim of turning your district into a charter school district.

In other words: rid yourself of the notion that your current opinions on curriculum, teacher evaluation, technology, or anything else will be the foundation for dramatic gains in student achievement. If history tells us anything, they will not be:

Dismissing this letter--and the idea of charter districts--would have been easier five years ago. But over the past five years, educators and policymakers in New Orleans created the nation's first charter school district.

This transformation of the New Orleans educational system may turn out to be the most significant national development in education since desegregation. Desegregation righted the morality of government in schooling. New Orleans may well right the role of government in schooling.

As the below chart details, since 2006 New Orleans students have halved the achievement gap with their state counterparts. In the next five years, New Orleans will likely be the first urban city in the country (that I know of) to surpass its state average.

Unfortunately, Louisiana ranks 49th in the country in student achievement. Surpassing the state is not the end goal. But what was once a hope is now a fact: New Orleans students have access to educational opportunities that are far superior to any in recent memory.

If the New Orleans results can be successfully replicated, tens of millions of children in other urban centers will also receive higher quality educational opportunities. Yes, the New Orleans system developed under unique devastating circumstances. But the system of schools now exists and should be evaluated on its merits. Willing adults in other cities can replicate this model, if they so desire.

The remainder of this letter will be posted over this week. In it I will cover: (a) the evidence base for charter districts; (b) why, at scale, charter districts will likely outperform traditional districts; and, remarkably free of charge, (c) how to prudently transform your district into a charter school district.

Also, each section will include a "chart of the day." As a special bonus, today's post includes two charts.

Before I begin in full, let me say this: Superintendents, over the years I've begun to believe that your identities--how each of you perceives your professional charge--are often misguided. In my experience, most of you view yourselves as system reformers--leaders who can make the current educational system much better. For the sake of the letter, let's call you, well, Reformers. With great diligence, you fight to make our government-operated system better.

But let me suggest another identity--one whose charge is to return power, in a thoughtful manner, back to parents and educators. Let's call these types of superintendents Relinquishers. With great diligence, these superintendents attempt to transfer power away from a centralized bureaucracy.

Both Reformers and Relinquishers possess noble aims, but only one group, I think, possesses a sound strategy.

Superintendents, in the rest of this letter I hope to convince you to become Relinquishers. Specifically, I will advocate that you return power to parents and educators through the creation of charter school districts, which are the most politically acceptable mechanisms for empowering educators.

Fortunately, I will not make many original arguments. Smarter people than me have said most of what will follow (see Bryan Hassel in 2003). I've just been lucky enough to have lived in New Orleans for most of my adult life. So I've not only read about what's possible, I've lived it, which is useful in terms of perspective and credibility.

Superintendents, together, you hold incredible power over tens of millions of children. As it stands now, many of these children will receive an abysmal primary and secondary education. This is not your fault. You inherited the system in which you operate.

But, together, over the course of the next five to fifteen years--the time period it takes to create a charter school district--you all can change this. And in doing so, you could transform our country.

I hope you do so.

Part II of the letter follows tomorrow.

Sincerely,

Neerav

--Neerav Kingsland

Posted by Neerav Kingsland at 7:45 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Note: Patricia Dickenson, a former elementary school teacher in Los Angeles, is guest posting this week. Dr. Dickenson is a member of ASCD's Emerging Leaders Program.

It seems as of late, blogs and news clippings in reference to education focus upon how our students perform juxtaposed to our international peers. Such a concentration on performance will only serve to fuel the influx of new tests, a standardized approach to teaching, and heighten the push toward a value-added approach for teacher evaluation.

In my final post I would like to shift gears from a quantitative approach to a qualitative one. I would like to preface this by stating that the stories I share are my experiences as a classroom teacher of Latino English language learners. By sharing my experiences as a teacher, coach, and university professor, I hope this will shift the way we view education and discuss our most precious commodity, our students.

Good Teaching Matters

This past week I had the opportunity to discuss with my university students what makes a good teacher. As I listened to students share their stories from elementary school to college, the personal connection they had with their teacher was consistently referenced. Teachers need the opportunity to give students the most precious gift, their time. In a standards-driven system where pacing plans and mandated curriculum keep teachers accountable, there is little room to deviate from the textbook and make a personal connection, but you must.

When gang violence was at an all time high at our school and a considerable amount of class time was spent on "lock down," student behavior was elevated and engagement was low. I asked my students to put their chairs in a circle and I took out a book of poems by Tupac Shakur and began to read. Students sat in silence, some began to take notes, and others tried to hide the sudden emotion that overwhelmed them. A book of poems written by a man whose life was swept away by violence, and read by a teacher who never walked a mile in their shoes but knew how they felt. This experience shifted our classroom dynamic and sparked a connection that ten years later my students still remind me of.

Teachers, remember: beyond the district mandates, scripted curriculum, and push for fidelity, your first commitment is to your students and we should always be responsive to their needs.

Context Embedded & Cognitively Demanding

The first time I crossed paths with the fifth grade lesson for surface area I thought to myself, "How can I teach this so it is meaningful and they remember?" After combing through the textbook, I knew beyond the two examples and profusion of related word problems I needed to step "outside the box." The next day I asked my students to bring in a container they could use to explore geometric formulas from another perspective. I provided scissors, rulers, graph paper, colored pencil, and partners for students to work collectively. We began an exploration of volume and surface area using items such as tissue and cereal boxes, soda cans, and milk containers. Once the students grasped the concept we analyzed the formulas and wrote our own word problems based on our class set of homemade manipulatives. The lesson was context embedded, because students had access to visual cues that would support understanding, and cognitively demanding, as students were analyzing algorithms, devising word problems, and deciphering surface area in a meaningful way. The lesson did take longer than dictated on my district guide but my students understood the concept, and I did not have to re-teach, or ask my colleagues "why do my students forget what I just taught?"

All students, but especially our English language learners, need to be given an opportunity to learn by doing. Teachers can work collaboratively to design lessons that build student understanding and challenge their thinking. Schools should utilize professional development to capitalize on their best assets, their teachers. I am always amazed at the wealth of knowledge teachers share with me when I visit their school sites, but sorely disappointed to learn this knowledge is not utilized properly.

The Places You Will Go

The first time I substituted in an affluent suburb of Los Angeles I was amazed at the vast differences from my school in South LA. The school was only about 10 miles from my home school, but it had everything our school had lacked. With a background in technology, I was a strong proponent of integrating these tools for my students--more so, because I knew my students did not have access at home. That summer I took the time to contact local business and placed ads on sites where you could request donations. I was amazed at the outpouring of equipment I received from laptops and PCs to scanners and printers. In fact, I received so much supplies that I gave quite a few away. My point is not to brag about these accomplishments, but to encourage teachers to reach out to local communities and connect with the resources that are available to you. By doing so you are not only changing the lives of your students but modeling problem solving and critical thinking skills that are essential for our students to see in action.

Back to Basics...

Good teaching is not something that can be calculated through a statistical analysis of students' results on a standardized test. What would be much more meaningful would be to determine teachers' effectiveness by the data we collect from our students and parents. We should ask our clients how they would rate teacher planning, pedagogy, effectiveness, and content knowledge. Good teaching begins with good intentions, and is coupled with a love of knowledge, a passion for pedagogy, and most importantly a belief that all children regardless of their home language or zip code can achieve.

--Patricia Dickenson

Posted by Patricia Dickenson at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Note: Patricia Dickenson, a former elementary school teacher in Los Angeles, is guest posting this week. Dr. Dickenson is a member of ASCD's Emerging Leaders Program.

In my first post, I addressed educational drawbacks that English language learners may encounter in schools. In today's post I would like to address how schools and districts can be more resourceful in closing the achievement gap. Experts believe the way schools support, assess, and track could be pivotal in meeting the needs of this diverse group of students.

Spend Money on Books, not Tests

According to Jim Cummins, an expert on bilingual education, students take at least 5 to 7 years to acquire a language; however, schools are mandated to test after their first year. Stephen Krashen, a prominent U.S. scholar in second language acquisition, recently spoke to a Korean audience about English language acquisition. "Instead, if you invest time and money spent on tests to quality books and building libraries, students will naturally score [well] on English tests as they get to...develop language competency naturally through reading."

I echo Krashen's sentiments and would advise schools and districts to use funding spent on testing ELLs to investing in books. If students are not given sufficient time to master a language and are continually met with poor achievement on standardized tests, they will be more likely to attribute their performance to intelligence rather than effort. This may explain why 68 percent of ELLs in California are "long-term" ELLs unable to exit the program.

The National Education Association (NEA) also supports the idea of extending the time for immigrant English language learners to master English from one year to three years prior to counting the results for AYP.

Solution: Schools and districts should create formative tests that reflect the skills necessary to master English. Assessments should mirror course curriculum and be used by teachers to inform their practice. Standardized testing should be postponed until ELLs have been in the system for three years, and the resources should instead be invested in expanding access to books and language tutoring.

Change Language Policy

The idea that our children will be competing at an international level not only for employment, but entrance into universities and colleges, has put a spotlight on our education system. We know that we are behind global leaders such as Finland, South Korea, Canada, and now Shanghai. These global peers promote learning more than one language at an early age, but this is not always the case in American's public schools. In 2008, one-quarter of U.S. elementary schools offered some form of language instruction--down from one-third 11 years earlier.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan stated in order to "prosper economically and to improve relations with other countries Americans need to read, speak and understand other languages." Duncan also contends that our education system is the reason why Americans are not learning other languages. There is a plethora of research to support the benefits of learning more than one language, from higher cognitive achievement and problem-solving skills to greater creativity and affinity for languages.

Ironically, multilingual schools are emerging and being sought out by parents in more affluent and educated areas as a means to give their children an edge or sense of culture. For example, in the area where I reside, two of the most affluent and sought after public schools have Spanish classes starting in kindergarten. Yet students in neighboring low poverty areas do not begin language instruction until high school despite the fact that a large percentage of these students are native Spanish speakers.

Many non-native English students enter a system that does not value their home language. This not only sends the wrong message to ELL students, but also denies English-only students an opportunity to learn a second language. We should shape our system to capitalize on students' wealth of knowledge. The very fact that many schools do not begin second language instruction until high school is missing a rare window to offer the students an opportunity to become conversant or fluent in other languages as well as develop positive attitudes toward people who speak another language.

What is notable is that schools around the country are changing the way their districts view language policy. In Flagstaff, Arizona, a student's home language is used as an additive approach to instruction. The school is ethnically mixed with about 41 percent Hispanic, 31 percent White, and 27 percent American Indian and is thriving despite the fact that more than half of their students are eligible for free and reduced lunch. In Naperville, Illinois, where 76 percent of the residents are Caucasian with an average family income of over $100,000, the school district is expanding their dual language program through the high school.

Solution: Districts should find ways to integrate native English speakers with ELLs from the onset of schooling rather than isolating in ELL tracks. Not only will this approach allow ELL students to feel part of the school community, but it will encourage students to learn new languages together. Second language instruction should begin in elementary school through songs, music, and games and build gradually over the years. We are missing an excellent opportunity here to incorporate students into our teaching practices. Having ELLs pair off or be put into teams to teach their home language to someone not proficient in that language could only help schools and foster a team mentality rather than a social hierarchy.

Minimize Disparities

Linda Darling-Hammond put a spotlight on the difference between affluent and impoverished schools throughout the United States. Disparities exist not only when it comes to per-pupil spending but teacher salary and school resources as well. Teachers at low-performing and low-income schools are aware that they are paid less and receive fewer resources despite the fact that their children need and deserve the same opportunities (and even more) to be successful.

These teachers are also under a tremendous amount of pressure to improve test scores and raise achievement. According to Darling-Hammond, "More than 70 percent of black and Latino students attend predominately minority schools, and nearly 40 percent attend intensely segregated schools, where more than 90 percent of students are minority and most are poor." In Kentucky, Hispanic students are less likely to be in segregated schools even in large urban cities, and this difference is making a difference. In 2010, graduation rates for Hispanics was about 79 percent compared to 81 percent of whites.

Solution: The issue of school segregation and language policy needs to be revisited by state and school leaders. A Call to Action should include a national council on education to examine education reform and support the whole child. Since data suggests the gap begins well before kindergarten, preschool coops are an economical solution to diminish inequities in school readiness.

In my final post tomorrow I will share my experiences as a teacher in South Central, Los Angeles and explore what teachers of English language learners can do within the classroom.

--Patricia Dickenson

Posted by Patricia Dickenson at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend