Alan Borsuk has an article in today's Journal Sentinel on the MPS report card. Borsuk singles out the ninth grade bulge, reflecting students who are stuck in ninth grade for two or more years. Ninth grade in Milwaukee seems to be a problematic year for several reasons, and not just because students have trouble getting through it.
When I looked at test scores for individual MPS students several years ago, I found that ninth grade was the only year in which the average student scored lower than that same student did the year before. At the time, tests were given in the spring, so most growth (or in this case lack of growth) could be credited to the grade in which the test was given.
There are several possible explanations for this apparent backsliding. The most optimistic is that the ninth grade test is poorly aligned with what is taught in ninth grade, so that students are learning material that does not appear on the test. A far more likely explanation, in my view, is that the high schools don't know their students, so many ninth graders waste the year on material they already had while others waste the year because they are in over their heads.
A look at eighth grade scores for the incoming freshmen painted a picture of the impossible academic diversity facing a typical ninth grade teachers. A class of thirty students would include ones scoring below the average third-grader on eighth grade exams and others outscoring the average tenth grader. How could a teacher hope to meet the needs of this wildly divergent group. If I were running a high school, I would spend the first week testing the student and then sorting them into classes that would meet their needs.
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Sunday, November 21, 2004
What next for the Democrats?
Today's Washington Post has an interesting article on why Democrats won in Colorado:
With the concern over high taxes, Governor Doyle and the Democrats will lose if they are viewed as the party representing the interests of public employees rather than those of the public (especially the public as taxpayers). With the so-called Taxpayer Bill of Rights, Republicans are cleverly defining the contest as one between government and taxes.
Doyle and the Democrats have apparently decided that taking the WEAC position on school choice and charter schools incurs little political risk, since the parents who benefit have not thus far become an effective political force. But the political danger to Democrats may come from a different direction: that by toeing the WEAC line they position themselves as the friends of those who benefit from the status quo in government programs rather than as problem solvers. In doing so, the play the Republican game,
Colorado Democrats say their success carries a lesson for the national party. "We campaigned on pragmatism," state Democratic Chairman Christopher Gates said. "We set ourselves up as the problem solvers, while the Republicans were hung up on a bunch of fringe social issues like gay marriage and the Pledge of Allegiance.Colorado, in Schools Now's view, also has lessons for Wisconsin Democrats. Despite Kerry's close win in Wisconsin, Republicans increased their domination of the legislature. The danger is that Democrats will look to their base in Milwaukee or Madison for a solution rather than finding ways to convince voters that they can solve problems better than Republicans can.
"The notion that moral issues won the 2004 election was disproven in Colorado," Gates continued. "We offered solutions, not ideology, and won almost everything."
With the concern over high taxes, Governor Doyle and the Democrats will lose if they are viewed as the party representing the interests of public employees rather than those of the public (especially the public as taxpayers). With the so-called Taxpayer Bill of Rights, Republicans are cleverly defining the contest as one between government and taxes.
Doyle and the Democrats have apparently decided that taking the WEAC position on school choice and charter schools incurs little political risk, since the parents who benefit have not thus far become an effective political force. But the political danger to Democrats may come from a different direction: that by toeing the WEAC line they position themselves as the friends of those who benefit from the status quo in government programs rather than as problem solvers. In doing so, the play the Republican game,
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Post Election Notes: What Didn't Work
Schools Now takes note of two campaigns that apparently did not work in the recent election:
1. Ads from WEAC (the state teacher's union) accusing Republicans of favoring Milwaukee for supporting charter schools. Of the eight seats targeted by WEAC, Schools Now counts only one Democratic victory. This seemed like a strikingly stupid campaign for many reasons, but satisfaction about its failure is tempered by the increasing Republican monopoly in the legislature. Schools Now can only hope that the results might finally jolt the Democrats into thinking about developing a compelling vision for Wisconsin.
2. The ads paid for by at least one pro school choice group and run on black-oriented radio stations. The only likely effect is to increase antagonism among legislators who, by rights, should be the strongest supporters of school choice. Schools Now suggests that the folks sponsoring these ads should also take a long break to think about how to win friends and influence people.
1. Ads from WEAC (the state teacher's union) accusing Republicans of favoring Milwaukee for supporting charter schools. Of the eight seats targeted by WEAC, Schools Now counts only one Democratic victory. This seemed like a strikingly stupid campaign for many reasons, but satisfaction about its failure is tempered by the increasing Republican monopoly in the legislature. Schools Now can only hope that the results might finally jolt the Democrats into thinking about developing a compelling vision for Wisconsin.
2. The ads paid for by at least one pro school choice group and run on black-oriented radio stations. The only likely effect is to increase antagonism among legislators who, by rights, should be the strongest supporters of school choice. Schools Now suggests that the folks sponsoring these ads should also take a long break to think about how to win friends and influence people.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
School Boards and Secrecy
In his response to Ken Johnson's letter criticising his visit to the MTEA (the Milwaukee teacher's union) during negotiations, Peter Blewett devotes considerable space to arguing that everything said in an executive session should be secret. This could represent a major advance for the cause of school board secrecy.
Here is an example. Let's say a school superintendent wants to inform the board about major financial problems, but does not want the press or public to pick up on the story. So he asks for an executive session of the board, only to be informed that state law requires that discussion of district finances be held in public. Thus he is out of luck....or is he?
However the board can meet in executive session to discuss its bargaining strategy with the union, one of the exemptions from the state open meetings law, on the theory that disclosing the strategy to the other side could put the negotiators at a disadvantage. As part of the discussion of strategy, the superientendent may talk about the district's precarious financial situation as background to why the offer cannot be more generous.
If board members are now obligated not to disclose anything they learned about the district's financial situation, on the grounds that this information came out in an executive session, the superintendent is able to achieve his original, illegal, goal.
For a more detailed critique of this expansion of secrecy, see my letter here.
Here is an example. Let's say a school superintendent wants to inform the board about major financial problems, but does not want the press or public to pick up on the story. So he asks for an executive session of the board, only to be informed that state law requires that discussion of district finances be held in public. Thus he is out of luck....or is he?
However the board can meet in executive session to discuss its bargaining strategy with the union, one of the exemptions from the state open meetings law, on the theory that disclosing the strategy to the other side could put the negotiators at a disadvantage. As part of the discussion of strategy, the superientendent may talk about the district's precarious financial situation as background to why the offer cannot be more generous.
If board members are now obligated not to disclose anything they learned about the district's financial situation, on the grounds that this information came out in an executive session, the superintendent is able to achieve his original, illegal, goal.
For a more detailed critique of this expansion of secrecy, see my letter here.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
New Flash! Peter Blewett reads Schools Now!
Schools Now welcomes MPS board president Peter Blewett to its ranks of loyal readers. In July, we published an item that Blewett had been freelancing in negotiations with the MTEA. Yesterday, we received the response to our freedom of information request:
- A letter from board member Ken Johnson to Blewett charging him with an improper visit to the MTEA (which was mentioned in our earlier item) and accusing him of impugning the integrity of the MPS staff. This letter is heavily redacted--meaning lots of heavy black lines hiding the good stuff, so it is hard to tell what Blewett proposed to do with the information he got from the MTEA.
- A response from Blewett denying the accusations (the visit was purely to gather information; he has "high respect" for the staff), and waxing indignant that someone leaked this controversy to Schools Now. Exhibit 1 is a printout of the offending post from July.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Who is better for Milwaukee education--Bush or Kerry?
While this blog is focused (obsessed perhaps) on education in Milwaukee , it may be wise to take a moment to observe that there is a national election this Tuesday. How will the outcome affect Milwaukee education? Or, to suspend reality for a moment, assume there is a voter who will decide solely on who will make Milwaukee schools better? How should that voter vote?
The No Child Left Behind Act has effectively neutralized those on the Milwaukee school board and outside it who would like to roll back the measurement of student outcomes. Bush, of course, put a major effort into passing this measure, and Kerry supports it. While Kerry has criticized the funding levels, there is every reason to believe he would continue to support the use of measurement. In fact, his proposals for teacher incentives make use of value-added measures of student achievement.
Milwaukee has been a leader in opening more alternatives for students, especially charter schools and the school choice program. Both Bush and Kerry are strong supporters of charter schools. Bush supports, while Kerry opposes, private school choice. The future of school choice in Milwaukee, however, will largely be decided by state politics, not national politics.
Thus on issues, Schools Now gives a slight advantage to Bush, both because of his support for private school choice and the political capital he was willing to invest in pushing the NCLB legislation.
A second question is political courage: how willing is the candidate to support reforms that may offend important parts of his base? While Bush's support for a more active federal role in education ran counter to those conservatives who would prefer to abolish the Department of Education, his support of school choice is practically risk free. Kerry, however, risks offending an important part of his base through his support of the NCLB, of teacher incentives, and of charter schools.
On political courage on education issues, then, Schools Now gives the edge to Kerry. The danger is that teachers' unions and others opposed to school reform may expect a president Kerry to show his gratitude for their support by backing down on his positions. Yet, having shown his willingness to buck them before the election, it would be puzzling if he buckled afterwards.
A final issue is the effect of the election on the political viability of reform in Milwaukee. NCLB was the one truly bi-partisan major legislative initiative of the Bush administration. Yet despite the active involvement of Democrats like Edward Kennedy, opponents of measurement and accountability have tried to paint this measure as a plot by conservative Republicans to destroy public education. Support from a president Kerry could restore a measure of bi-partisan support to the NCLB reforms and offer a dollop of succor to Milwaukee reformers not eager to be cast as conservatives or Republicans.
Likewise, Milwaukee's charter schools are placed at risk by WEAC's current campaign attacking Republicans for supporting them. Optimistically perhaps, having a Democratic president who supports charters might take some of the wind out of this campaign.
Finally, it seems unlikely that the election will have much effect either way on the present entanglement of the school choice program with state partisan politics. As I suggested earlier, this is likely to change only when choice supporters learn how to build a political base in the low-income areas where most of the families who benefit from the program live.
Thus, in terms of making support for reform easier in Milwaukee, Schools Now gives a strong advantage to Kerry.
The No Child Left Behind Act has effectively neutralized those on the Milwaukee school board and outside it who would like to roll back the measurement of student outcomes. Bush, of course, put a major effort into passing this measure, and Kerry supports it. While Kerry has criticized the funding levels, there is every reason to believe he would continue to support the use of measurement. In fact, his proposals for teacher incentives make use of value-added measures of student achievement.
Milwaukee has been a leader in opening more alternatives for students, especially charter schools and the school choice program. Both Bush and Kerry are strong supporters of charter schools. Bush supports, while Kerry opposes, private school choice. The future of school choice in Milwaukee, however, will largely be decided by state politics, not national politics.
Thus on issues, Schools Now gives a slight advantage to Bush, both because of his support for private school choice and the political capital he was willing to invest in pushing the NCLB legislation.
A second question is political courage: how willing is the candidate to support reforms that may offend important parts of his base? While Bush's support for a more active federal role in education ran counter to those conservatives who would prefer to abolish the Department of Education, his support of school choice is practically risk free. Kerry, however, risks offending an important part of his base through his support of the NCLB, of teacher incentives, and of charter schools.
On political courage on education issues, then, Schools Now gives the edge to Kerry. The danger is that teachers' unions and others opposed to school reform may expect a president Kerry to show his gratitude for their support by backing down on his positions. Yet, having shown his willingness to buck them before the election, it would be puzzling if he buckled afterwards.
A final issue is the effect of the election on the political viability of reform in Milwaukee. NCLB was the one truly bi-partisan major legislative initiative of the Bush administration. Yet despite the active involvement of Democrats like Edward Kennedy, opponents of measurement and accountability have tried to paint this measure as a plot by conservative Republicans to destroy public education. Support from a president Kerry could restore a measure of bi-partisan support to the NCLB reforms and offer a dollop of succor to Milwaukee reformers not eager to be cast as conservatives or Republicans.
Likewise, Milwaukee's charter schools are placed at risk by WEAC's current campaign attacking Republicans for supporting them. Optimistically perhaps, having a Democratic president who supports charters might take some of the wind out of this campaign.
Finally, it seems unlikely that the election will have much effect either way on the present entanglement of the school choice program with state partisan politics. As I suggested earlier, this is likely to change only when choice supporters learn how to build a political base in the low-income areas where most of the families who benefit from the program live.
Thus, in terms of making support for reform easier in Milwaukee, Schools Now gives a strong advantage to Kerry.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Larry O'Neill
Larry O'Neill is by far the senior member of the Milwaukee School Board, having been first elected in 1977. Despite his longevity, he has not left much of a mark on MPS. Cautious by nature, he seems reluctant to take the lead on issues, even those he has long supported. For example, his board profile lists a goal as "the reduction of student busing through the establishment of neighborhood schools." Yet he was reluctant to embrace the Neighborhood Schools Initiative when it was first introduced. Although likeable, he appears to have no interest in building coalitions among board members for specific measures.
O'Neill has an occasional independent streak. He was the only board member to oppose the proposed bond issue twelve years ago, probably reflecting its unpopularity in his district. Although generally considered part of the 5-member pro-MTEA majority, he regards Morales and Blewett as overly ideological. His sense of propriety is offended at Charlene Hardin's sometimes disruptive behavior; at a recent board meeting, he took time to denounce in detail her behavior in committee--without mentioning her name.
It is unclear if he will run for re-election.
O'Neill has an occasional independent streak. He was the only board member to oppose the proposed bond issue twelve years ago, probably reflecting its unpopularity in his district. Although generally considered part of the 5-member pro-MTEA majority, he regards Morales and Blewett as overly ideological. His sense of propriety is offended at Charlene Hardin's sometimes disruptive behavior; at a recent board meeting, he took time to denounce in detail her behavior in committee--without mentioning her name.
It is unclear if he will run for re-election.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Congressional candidates follow the script
I stopped by a forum today between the two Milwaukee congressional candidates: Democrat Gwen Moore and Republican Jerry Boyle. While both declared how much they respected each other, they both hewed to their party line, meaning that Boyle has no chance of election in this district. (I keep hoping that a Republican will put a seat in play by breaking with his party on one of the big issues--no such luck this time). Moore seemed to be running mostly against George Bush, not Jerry Boyle.
They also followed the script on education. Moore talked about the need for more money; Boyle about charters and vouchers. All dog bites man stuff. Now if Moore pushed vouchers and Boyle talked about getting more resources into schools, that would be exciting.
They also followed the script on education. Moore talked about the need for more money; Boyle about charters and vouchers. All dog bites man stuff. Now if Moore pushed vouchers and Boyle talked about getting more resources into schools, that would be exciting.
Choice seat allocation toasted
Tomorrow's Journal Sentinel reports that a legislative committee shot down proposed rules to allocate school choice seats when enrollment hits the cap. The Department of Public Instruction had proposed the rules in the hopes of reducing the impact of the caps--for example, by giving priority to siblings.
By contrast, it appears that without the rules the impact will be harsher. Apparently, schools would estimate their enrollments, the estimates would be totaled, and if the total exceeded the cap all allocations would be reduced by the same percentage. This would seem to create a huge incentive to game the system: schools that overestimated their expected enrollment would see less of a cut than those who submitted a more honest estimate. At the end, it is possible that some schools would have to turn away students while others had unfilled seats.
Oddly, it seems clear that the committee rejected the proposed rules at the behest of school choice advocates. Apparently they hope that a messier implementation will create pressure on Governor Doyle to raise the caps. I am skeptical, but hope I am proven wrong. I expect the governor to blame any mess on the Republicans who control the legislature and the school choice advocates.
By contrast, it appears that without the rules the impact will be harsher. Apparently, schools would estimate their enrollments, the estimates would be totaled, and if the total exceeded the cap all allocations would be reduced by the same percentage. This would seem to create a huge incentive to game the system: schools that overestimated their expected enrollment would see less of a cut than those who submitted a more honest estimate. At the end, it is possible that some schools would have to turn away students while others had unfilled seats.
Oddly, it seems clear that the committee rejected the proposed rules at the behest of school choice advocates. Apparently they hope that a messier implementation will create pressure on Governor Doyle to raise the caps. I am skeptical, but hope I am proven wrong. I expect the governor to blame any mess on the Republicans who control the legislature and the school choice advocates.
Jennifer Morales
Jennifer Morales represents the fifth school board district, stretching from the East Side to the near South Side. For most of her term it appears that the school board has been her only employment, reflected in her comments during the board pay hike controversy: "It's very hard to hold another job while we're doing this work." However, she is currently listed as Development Director for 9to5.
Prior to joining the board, Morales worked for Alex Molnar at UWM. Her primary role there seems to have been compiling examples for an annual survey of commercialization in education. While Morales describes herself as an educational researcher, it appears she has little experience with measuring educational effectiveness and has been particularly hostile to using tests to measure student learning. When Molnar moved to Arizona, he took the commercialization center and its grants along with him and Morales' job ended.
Prior to the Molnar gig, she wrote several articles for Rethinking Schools:
"Apple Tries to Censor History"
"Buying Minds"
"Fasting for Funding"
"Massachusetts Policy Protects Gay/Lesbian Students"
"Really Rich White Guys"
"Sex Harassment Rampant in Schools"
"School to War?"
"Wisconsin Explores Funding Alternatives"
Since those articles predate the time Rethinking Schools was placed on the web, they are not easily accessible. Judging from the topics, however, it appears evident that her themes were typical of Rethinking Schools.
Despite this background in education, Morales has been surprisingly unclear as to her vision for MPS. She has expressed reservations about many of the MPS initiatives (neighborhood schools, decentralization of funding, testing, reduction of busing, etc.), but has usually acquiesced in the end. A theme both in her election campaign and since is the need for more funding, but she has not shown a viable strategy to obtain it.
While on the board, much of her energy seems to have been devoted to issues peripheral to education (bus driver contracts or the radio station), external to MPS (opposition to vouchers), or outside of education entirely (opposition to the Iraq war, support of grocery unions). She has been particularly active as a spokesperson for groups opposing vouchers.
In the view of some of her colleagues, the explosion of outrage over the board pay raise she supported and then-mayoral candidate Tom Barrett's proposal to have the mayor appoint the board shocked Morales. As a result, she has recently adopted a more moderate, and less strident and ideological tone, breaking with her ally Peter Blewett by supporting renewal of the superintendent's contract and supporting his budget proposal.
Recently, she is emerging as a Democratic Party activist. She was a delegate to the Democratic convention in Boston. She is currently running as a Democrat against Senator Alberta Darling on the North Shore. While it appears she has little chance of winning (she has little money and if the party thought it had a good chance of winning the seat it is likely they would have recruited a more moderate candidate with a better chance of appealing to independents), this race should seal her Democratic party identity.
It appears Morales is a good bet to win reelection in the fifth district, even if her interests are less in how to make MPS more effective than the traditional liberal issues played out in the legislature. As a woman, Hispanic, and "out-bisexual," she hits the trifecta of identity politics important to many in the district. Particularly if Bush is re-elected, stoking anger among Democrats, her emergence as a Democratic activist should play well in the district.
Prior to joining the board, Morales worked for Alex Molnar at UWM. Her primary role there seems to have been compiling examples for an annual survey of commercialization in education. While Morales describes herself as an educational researcher, it appears she has little experience with measuring educational effectiveness and has been particularly hostile to using tests to measure student learning. When Molnar moved to Arizona, he took the commercialization center and its grants along with him and Morales' job ended.
Prior to the Molnar gig, she wrote several articles for Rethinking Schools:
"Apple Tries to Censor History"
"Buying Minds"
"Fasting for Funding"
"Massachusetts Policy Protects Gay/Lesbian Students"
"Really Rich White Guys"
"Sex Harassment Rampant in Schools"
"School to War?"
"Wisconsin Explores Funding Alternatives"
Since those articles predate the time Rethinking Schools was placed on the web, they are not easily accessible. Judging from the topics, however, it appears evident that her themes were typical of Rethinking Schools.
Despite this background in education, Morales has been surprisingly unclear as to her vision for MPS. She has expressed reservations about many of the MPS initiatives (neighborhood schools, decentralization of funding, testing, reduction of busing, etc.), but has usually acquiesced in the end. A theme both in her election campaign and since is the need for more funding, but she has not shown a viable strategy to obtain it.
While on the board, much of her energy seems to have been devoted to issues peripheral to education (bus driver contracts or the radio station), external to MPS (opposition to vouchers), or outside of education entirely (opposition to the Iraq war, support of grocery unions). She has been particularly active as a spokesperson for groups opposing vouchers.
In the view of some of her colleagues, the explosion of outrage over the board pay raise she supported and then-mayoral candidate Tom Barrett's proposal to have the mayor appoint the board shocked Morales. As a result, she has recently adopted a more moderate, and less strident and ideological tone, breaking with her ally Peter Blewett by supporting renewal of the superintendent's contract and supporting his budget proposal.
Recently, she is emerging as a Democratic Party activist. She was a delegate to the Democratic convention in Boston. She is currently running as a Democrat against Senator Alberta Darling on the North Shore. While it appears she has little chance of winning (she has little money and if the party thought it had a good chance of winning the seat it is likely they would have recruited a more moderate candidate with a better chance of appealing to independents), this race should seal her Democratic party identity.
It appears Morales is a good bet to win reelection in the fifth district, even if her interests are less in how to make MPS more effective than the traditional liberal issues played out in the legislature. As a woman, Hispanic, and "out-bisexual," she hits the trifecta of identity politics important to many in the district. Particularly if Bush is re-elected, stoking anger among Democrats, her emergence as a Democratic activist should play well in the district.
Monday, October 11, 2004
Peter Blewett
Peter Blewett is an adjunct faculty member at the university of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, where he teaches several sections of an introductory writing course. He also writes poetry. On the MPS school board, he represents the sixth district on Milwaukee's west side and is currently the board president. Like the other three members in this series, his term expires in April, with the campaign starting December 1.
The major theme of Blewett's first campaign--recurring often since--was the need for more money from the state. He can be counted on to appear at any rally protesting funding levels. Given the current obsession with high tax levels, it is not surprising that these efforts have been totally unsuccessful.
He and Jennifer Morales are considered the most ideological members of the board. Even those who are normally allies are discomfited by this pair's tendency to use their position on the board to promote various causes, including some with little connection to MPS.
It appears he does not have a broad vision for MPS. While strongly opposed to testing, he seems to have given up on altering the MPS assessment policy. His initiatives have largely consisted of trying to give something to various groups, including trying to mandate that all schools have librarians or involving MPS in negotiations between bus companies and their drivers. While these initiatives would further restrict schools and consume resources, they are most striking for their irrelevance to the big issue at MPS, increasing student achievement.
Blewett has been active in opposing the school choice program. When Rudolph Giuliani visited the Milwaukee voucher schools, according to an anti voucher newsletter, "Blewett organized protests in Milwaukee at every stop." Those fighting vouchers in New York then brought Blewett, Morales, and Charlene Hardin to New York for an anti-voucher forum.
A theme in Blewett's opposition to school choice is the need for "full accountability for all schools receiving public funds." It is ironic, then, that he joined in killing a proposal to explore inviting the choice and charter schools to participate in the MPS testing and data collection program. The irony deepened when he opposed terminating the contract for the failing Afro Urban Institute charter school.
As plans to invade Iraq heated up, Blewett and Morales introduced a resolution to require all MPS schools to devote at least one period to discussing the war, a proposal that was widely seen as an attempt to politicize the public schools. Eventually it was replaced by a resolution restating MPS policy that deals with controversial issues.
Blewett also created controversy within the board for his actions in the current labor negotiations. While president he met with union leadership to discuss their proposal on medical insurance. He then suggested that MPS adopt the union proposal. This action was criticized for undercutting the district's negotiators and raised concerns about a possible sell-out, especially because he is dependent on union political support.
While Blewett and Morales seem ideological soul-mates, recently there are signs of a split, at least in style. Morales, always smoother and less blustery than Blewett, seems intent on building a more moderate image. For example, she supported renewing the superintendent's contract, while Blewett voted against it.
The major theme of Blewett's first campaign--recurring often since--was the need for more money from the state. He can be counted on to appear at any rally protesting funding levels. Given the current obsession with high tax levels, it is not surprising that these efforts have been totally unsuccessful.
He and Jennifer Morales are considered the most ideological members of the board. Even those who are normally allies are discomfited by this pair's tendency to use their position on the board to promote various causes, including some with little connection to MPS.
It appears he does not have a broad vision for MPS. While strongly opposed to testing, he seems to have given up on altering the MPS assessment policy. His initiatives have largely consisted of trying to give something to various groups, including trying to mandate that all schools have librarians or involving MPS in negotiations between bus companies and their drivers. While these initiatives would further restrict schools and consume resources, they are most striking for their irrelevance to the big issue at MPS, increasing student achievement.
Blewett has been active in opposing the school choice program. When Rudolph Giuliani visited the Milwaukee voucher schools, according to an anti voucher newsletter, "Blewett organized protests in Milwaukee at every stop." Those fighting vouchers in New York then brought Blewett, Morales, and Charlene Hardin to New York for an anti-voucher forum.
A theme in Blewett's opposition to school choice is the need for "full accountability for all schools receiving public funds." It is ironic, then, that he joined in killing a proposal to explore inviting the choice and charter schools to participate in the MPS testing and data collection program. The irony deepened when he opposed terminating the contract for the failing Afro Urban Institute charter school.
As plans to invade Iraq heated up, Blewett and Morales introduced a resolution to require all MPS schools to devote at least one period to discussing the war, a proposal that was widely seen as an attempt to politicize the public schools. Eventually it was replaced by a resolution restating MPS policy that deals with controversial issues.
Blewett also created controversy within the board for his actions in the current labor negotiations. While president he met with union leadership to discuss their proposal on medical insurance. He then suggested that MPS adopt the union proposal. This action was criticized for undercutting the district's negotiators and raised concerns about a possible sell-out, especially because he is dependent on union political support.
While Blewett and Morales seem ideological soul-mates, recently there are signs of a split, at least in style. Morales, always smoother and less blustery than Blewett, seems intent on building a more moderate image. For example, she supported renewing the superintendent's contract, while Blewett voted against it.
Friday, October 01, 2004
George Bush the Liberal
For a certain type of liberal, good intentions trump good results. Thus it doesn't really matter if an integration plan actually promotes integration so long as its supporters sincerely want integration. If an alternative to the plan is suggested, supporters instinctively attack the motives of those suggesting the alternative. Whether or not the alternative would do a better job of promoting integration is largely irrelevant.
Likewise, these people admire the school board members who loudly demand more money from Wisconsin, even though the results have been nil--and will continue to be in the present financial climate. Milwaukee School Board meetings always attracted a disproportionate number of people demanding the board prove its concern for children by taking some action that had no chance of success.
Watching the debate last night, I was struck that George Bush had adopted this liberal mindset. The president talks about his good intentions, firmness, etc., as if those justify the lack of a well thought out plan for success. Confirming their belief that intentions are all that count, Michael Moore-type liberals construct elaborate conspiracy theories about Bush's evil motivations for the invasion. I think a more plausible explanation is that a sincere conviction in the rightness of one's intentions can lead to a simplistic view of the world, ignoring information that does not fit that view.
Likewise, these people admire the school board members who loudly demand more money from Wisconsin, even though the results have been nil--and will continue to be in the present financial climate. Milwaukee School Board meetings always attracted a disproportionate number of people demanding the board prove its concern for children by taking some action that had no chance of success.
Watching the debate last night, I was struck that George Bush had adopted this liberal mindset. The president talks about his good intentions, firmness, etc., as if those justify the lack of a well thought out plan for success. Confirming their belief that intentions are all that count, Michael Moore-type liberals construct elaborate conspiracy theories about Bush's evil motivations for the invasion. I think a more plausible explanation is that a sincere conviction in the rightness of one's intentions can lead to a simplistic view of the world, ignoring information that does not fit that view.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Vouchers and graduation rates
The very prolific Jay Greene is out with a new study comparing graduation rates at Milwaukee public high schools with those at voucher schools. The study is described in this article and sponsored by School Choice Wisconsin, which unfortunately does not yet list it on its website. The authors, themselves, seem cautious about their results--and rightly so. They point out that their study does not follow actual students from freshman to graduation; rather it compares the size of the freshman class with that of the graduates.
One problem with the Greene approach is that it apparently makes no adjustment for ninth graders who are repeating that grade (around 30% in Milwaukee). This inflates the denominator of the ratio. In other words, 30% of the students counted as starting the race to graduation one year would have been counted in the previous year.
Another problem is the simplistic model it implies: of a contest between two groups of students, one in public schools, the other in private, to see which will have the most survivors over the next four years. An alternative model is at least as plausible: that many students first try the public schools, later switching to private schools. (I am aware of a private school--not a voucher school--with 27 freshmen and 211 seniors--which would, under the Greene calculation, give it a graduation rate of almost 800%.)
In the alternative model, the voucher schools are more a complement than competition to public schools, particularly valuable in serving students who might otherwise be lost.
One problem with the Greene approach is that it apparently makes no adjustment for ninth graders who are repeating that grade (around 30% in Milwaukee). This inflates the denominator of the ratio. In other words, 30% of the students counted as starting the race to graduation one year would have been counted in the previous year.
Another problem is the simplistic model it implies: of a contest between two groups of students, one in public schools, the other in private, to see which will have the most survivors over the next four years. An alternative model is at least as plausible: that many students first try the public schools, later switching to private schools. (I am aware of a private school--not a voucher school--with 27 freshmen and 211 seniors--which would, under the Greene calculation, give it a graduation rate of almost 800%.)
In the alternative model, the voucher schools are more a complement than competition to public schools, particularly valuable in serving students who might otherwise be lost.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Value added strikes again!
A Journal Sentinel article describes a new study from the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance comparing school districts' performance on the fourth grade reading exam. From the article, it appears the methodology used is very similar to one I have been pushing for several years: first predict the performance of a district based on its poverty rate and other available data. Then compare its actual performance to its predicted performance. At the very least this answers the most common complaint about school performance comparisons: that schools serving wealthier students have an unfair advantage.
The Taxpayers Alliance web site gives little information on the study's methodology or conclusions, but does offer to send a copy for free. I may comment further when I have had a chance to read the report.
The Taxpayers Alliance web site gives little information on the study's methodology or conclusions, but does offer to send a copy for free. I may comment further when I have had a chance to read the report.
Sunday, September 19, 2004
Why liberals lose
For a certain type of liberal, good intentions are far more important than good outcomes. Thus they are far more interested in making emotional statements about the need for more money for schools than making sure that the money being spent is actually helping students. In some cases, in fact, the high-minded statements about the need for more money are much more important than figuring out how more money could be obtained. Schools Now finds this tendency particularly frustrating because he usually sympathizes with liberal goals.
Two articles in the Sunday Journal Sentinel illustrate this face of liberalism. Onedescribed the rally of a group a churches, who promise "to vote against candidates in the Nov. 2 election who fail to support alternatives to prison, better funding for public education and greater civil rights for immigrants." There seemed to be no discussion of--or a recognition of the need to consider--how to make these goals compatible with an environment obsessed with cutting spending and taxes.
The other described an ad campaign by the state teachers' union. (To view the ad, click on this link.) It shows a group of "politicians and profiteers" discussing how to increase class sizes, cut programs, increase testing to fail more schools, "let the market decide" who gets educated, and privatize the schools. Eventually we realize they are sitting in a classroom and the teacher throws them out, accusing them of interfering with her ability to teach. The announcer comments the "state and federal interference are threatening the quality of our schools."
In both of these, intentions are everything. Whether the proposals discussed have a positive or negative effect is irrelevant. Unfortunately, obsession with intentions leads to a failure to propose plausible solutions to problems, so liberals as a group come to viewed as irrelevant.
Two articles in the Sunday Journal Sentinel illustrate this face of liberalism. Onedescribed the rally of a group a churches, who promise "to vote against candidates in the Nov. 2 election who fail to support alternatives to prison, better funding for public education and greater civil rights for immigrants." There seemed to be no discussion of--or a recognition of the need to consider--how to make these goals compatible with an environment obsessed with cutting spending and taxes.
The other described an ad campaign by the state teachers' union. (To view the ad, click on this link.) It shows a group of "politicians and profiteers" discussing how to increase class sizes, cut programs, increase testing to fail more schools, "let the market decide" who gets educated, and privatize the schools. Eventually we realize they are sitting in a classroom and the teacher throws them out, accusing them of interfering with her ability to teach. The announcer comments the "state and federal interference are threatening the quality of our schools."
In both of these, intentions are everything. Whether the proposals discussed have a positive or negative effect is irrelevant. Unfortunately, obsession with intentions leads to a failure to propose plausible solutions to problems, so liberals as a group come to viewed as irrelevant.
Spring school board elections
Four of the nine Milwaukee school board members are facing elections this spring: Peter Blewett, Jennifer Morales, Charlene Hardin, and Larry O'Neill. The campaign will start in earnest right after the presidential election, with December devoted to collecting nomination signatures, a primary on February 15, and the election itself on April 5.
Over the next few weeks Schools Now plans a series on each of these races including the strengths, weaknesses, effectiveness, and vulnerability of the incumbents. Readers are invited to submit their insights.
Each of the incumbents is different. Yet they have one thing in common: all were elected with the support of the MTEA. Along with Tom Balistreri, they give the MTEA a 5-4 majority on the board. Thus the defeat or replacement of any one of them would make the board much more independent of MTEA. If history is a guide this would make major reforms much more likely and could ease contract negotiations.
Over the next few weeks Schools Now plans a series on each of these races including the strengths, weaknesses, effectiveness, and vulnerability of the incumbents. Readers are invited to submit their insights.
Each of the incumbents is different. Yet they have one thing in common: all were elected with the support of the MTEA. Along with Tom Balistreri, they give the MTEA a 5-4 majority on the board. Thus the defeat or replacement of any one of them would make the board much more independent of MTEA. If history is a guide this would make major reforms much more likely and could ease contract negotiations.
Saturday, September 18, 2004
New "failing schools" list published
The Journal Sentinel reports that 123 schools in Wisconsin--and 67 in Milwaukee--failed to make adequate progress under the standards of the No Child Left Behind act. As in past years, the schools on this list are heavily skewed towards those serving low-income kids.
Schools Now feels that identifying low-performing schools is a good thing and can serve as an incentive to improve, but the means of identifying these schools could be much better. The present system does too little to separate factors under the control of the school from those outside its control. Value-added measurements offer a way to get around this dilemma, particularly with next year's introduction of annual testing.
Schools Now feels that identifying low-performing schools is a good thing and can serve as an incentive to improve, but the means of identifying these schools could be much better. The present system does too little to separate factors under the control of the school from those outside its control. Value-added measurements offer a way to get around this dilemma, particularly with next year's introduction of annual testing.
Afro Urban Institute gets reprieve
Late Tuesday night, the MPS Innovation and School Reform committee voted 3-2 to give the Afro Urban Institute another three months to improve. Voting against more time for this charter school were Ken Johnson and Larry O'Neill. Voting for more time were Tom Balistreri, Jennifer Morales and board president Peter Blewett. Charlene Hardin, not a member of the committee, gave a fist-pounding speech in favor of the school and denouncing the superintendent.
This school has clearly been a "disaster," to use Morales' description. At the most basic level, for instance, it has claimed far more students than actually attend. Thus the vote to further extend the time allowed the school is a vote against holding charter schools accountable.
In that light, the line-up is ironic. Ken Johnson has been a strong supporter of charter schools. By contrast, neither Morales, Balistreri, Blewett, nor Hardin are generally viewed as strong charter school advocates, in part because of their dependence on the teachers' union and in part for ideological reasons.
Update: By votes of 5-3, the board voted to pull the measure out of committee and terminate the charter. This is good news for all those who believe that charter schools should be accountable. Voting to terminate were Ken Johnson, Jeff Spence, Joe Dannecker, Barbara Horton, and Larry O'Neill. Voting to continue the school were Peter Blewett, Charlen Hardin, and Tom Balistreri. Jennifer Morales did not attend the meeting but had earlier indicated her support for continuing the charter.
This school has clearly been a "disaster," to use Morales' description. At the most basic level, for instance, it has claimed far more students than actually attend. Thus the vote to further extend the time allowed the school is a vote against holding charter schools accountable.
In that light, the line-up is ironic. Ken Johnson has been a strong supporter of charter schools. By contrast, neither Morales, Balistreri, Blewett, nor Hardin are generally viewed as strong charter school advocates, in part because of their dependence on the teachers' union and in part for ideological reasons.
Update: By votes of 5-3, the board voted to pull the measure out of committee and terminate the charter. This is good news for all those who believe that charter schools should be accountable. Voting to terminate were Ken Johnson, Jeff Spence, Joe Dannecker, Barbara Horton, and Larry O'Neill. Voting to continue the school were Peter Blewett, Charlen Hardin, and Tom Balistreri. Jennifer Morales did not attend the meeting but had earlier indicated her support for continuing the charter.
Teachers and private schools
The Journal Sentinel reports on a study by the Thomas Fordham foundation on the number of public school teachers who send their children to private schools. As the Journal article notes, the study found almost 30% of public school teachers living in Milwaukee sent their children to private schools. This percentage is higher than either that for all Milwaukee parents or for urban teachers in general.
It seems likely to Schools Now that this sort of statistic is more compelling to those already convinced (including Schools Now) that school choice is good public policy than those convinced it is a bad idea. After all, opponents of school choice (with rare exceptions) don't argue against parents sending their children to private schools; they simply argue that tax money should not fund that choice.
To the extent that school choice has turned into a liberal versus conservative argument, the two groups have reversed their usual positions towards equity for the poor. Conservatives argue that poor parents should have the same right as middle class parents--including teachers--to opt out of the public schools. Liberals, by contrast, say that if the public school is not working for a child and the parent cannot afford a private school, tough luck.
It seems likely to Schools Now that this sort of statistic is more compelling to those already convinced (including Schools Now) that school choice is good public policy than those convinced it is a bad idea. After all, opponents of school choice (with rare exceptions) don't argue against parents sending their children to private schools; they simply argue that tax money should not fund that choice.
To the extent that school choice has turned into a liberal versus conservative argument, the two groups have reversed their usual positions towards equity for the poor. Conservatives argue that poor parents should have the same right as middle class parents--including teachers--to opt out of the public schools. Liberals, by contrast, say that if the public school is not working for a child and the parent cannot afford a private school, tough luck.
Friday, September 10, 2004
Goodbye, Third grade reading test
The Department of Public Instruction announced that it would drop the Wisconsin third grade reading test and replace it with the Terra Nova test. It also added Terra Nova testing in fifth, sixth, and seventh grade to meet requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind Act. While the announcement was accompanied by lamentations ("we test them till the cows come home"), the change means that it will be easier to track student progress over time, since the scores on one year's test can be directly compared to those for the previous year.
MTEA proposes teachers contribute to health insurance
Last week, the teachers' union proposed that teachers pay a portion of health insurance premiums. This represents something of a breakthrough, since the union has always resisted any teacher contribution. That said, it does not appear that the union proposal would create any incentive to hold down costs, since the payment would simply be a percentage of salary. There appears to be no reward for the teacher who chooses a less expensive policy or one who avoids unnecessary procedures.
(When I was on the Milwaukee school board I would meet for breakfast with Sam Carmen, the MTEA's executive director. I argued that the primary reason for teacher contributions was not cost shifting but creating incentives to reduce costs and that it made sense for teachers to share the benefits of any savings. This led to a union proposal for a revised insurance plan which the union believed would save money. The union proposed that any savings would be shared by MPS and the teachers. MPS agreed to this proposal. Unfortunately for this story, there were no savings.)
The MTEA also proposed getting rid of the supplemental retirement plan, but apparently only for new employees, in exchange for relazing the residency requirement. While getting rid of the plan seems a very good thing, by restricting the proposal to new employees, the immediate savings are likely small. It could also create two classes of employees, causing resentment in the future. If the present value of the current teachers' rights to the supplemental pension could be calculated, it would seem preferable to buy out those rights and reduce the need for future contributions.
(When I was on the Milwaukee school board I would meet for breakfast with Sam Carmen, the MTEA's executive director. I argued that the primary reason for teacher contributions was not cost shifting but creating incentives to reduce costs and that it made sense for teachers to share the benefits of any savings. This led to a union proposal for a revised insurance plan which the union believed would save money. The union proposed that any savings would be shared by MPS and the teachers. MPS agreed to this proposal. Unfortunately for this story, there were no savings.)
The MTEA also proposed getting rid of the supplemental retirement plan, but apparently only for new employees, in exchange for relazing the residency requirement. While getting rid of the plan seems a very good thing, by restricting the proposal to new employees, the immediate savings are likely small. It could also create two classes of employees, causing resentment in the future. If the present value of the current teachers' rights to the supplemental pension could be calculated, it would seem preferable to buy out those rights and reduce the need for future contributions.
MPS tries to close charter schools
Tomorrow's Journal Sentinel has a story that the MPS administration will propose closing a school it chartered, called the Afro Urban Institute. My impression of the founders is that they had more enthusiasm than administrative skills.
It will be interesting to see which board members agree, since the founders of the charter school have connections with several directors.
It will be interesting to see which board members agree, since the founders of the charter school have connections with several directors.
Urban Schools and the Middle Class
I have missed posting for the past three weeks because I have been traveling on family business. Much of that time was spent in Cleveland. The big news in Cleveland is that recent census data rate it as the city with the highest poverty. This number one rating seems to have caused some consternation locally. The mayor appointed a task force to recommend ways to reduce the poverty rate.
Logically, there are two types of strategies to reduce poverty rates: (1) attract more middle class people and (2) convert poor people into middle class people. On the first strategy, Milwaukee seems far ahead of Cleveland: converting warehouses into condominiums, reviving neighborhoods such as Bay View, and developing interesting projects such as those along the river. The process of warehouse conversion in Cleveland, for example, has barely begun. By building freeways along its lake shore, Cleveland may have eliminated much of the land that would today be most attractive to potential city dwellers.
But Cleveland and Milwaukee have much in common as old industrial cities much of whose traditional industry as left. They also underwent massive busing programs aimed at integration but leading to a middle class exodus.
Which brings us to the question of the role of schools in determining whether cities have a strong middle class. When it comes to schools, most of the attention has been devoted to the second strategy: how to give poor children the skills they need to get good jobs and leave poverty behind. This is an extremely important goal but a very frustrating one because of the lack of consensus as to how it can be done, or even whether it is possible.
By comparison, very little attention has been paid to the schools' role in supporting the first strategy. Without attractive schools, the city's ability to build its middle class will be limited to those not needing schools. The lack of attention is frustrating, especially because educators know how to make schools attractive to middle class parents. Every superintendent of a wealthy suburb knows how to do it--or they lose their jobs. In Milwaukee, schools like Golda Meir, the language immersion schools, arts schools, Montessori schools, and others show it can be done in an urban environment.
Part of the explanation for the lack of attention to schools that would attract middle class families is that the needs of middle class children seem far less pressing than those of poor kids. Educators know that the middle class kids will probably survive--but if they leave how well will the city survive? There is sometimes the view that the schools can serve one group or the other and must choose between them. Programs targeted at different groups may be attacked as unfair or discriminatory.
Logically, there are two types of strategies to reduce poverty rates: (1) attract more middle class people and (2) convert poor people into middle class people. On the first strategy, Milwaukee seems far ahead of Cleveland: converting warehouses into condominiums, reviving neighborhoods such as Bay View, and developing interesting projects such as those along the river. The process of warehouse conversion in Cleveland, for example, has barely begun. By building freeways along its lake shore, Cleveland may have eliminated much of the land that would today be most attractive to potential city dwellers.
But Cleveland and Milwaukee have much in common as old industrial cities much of whose traditional industry as left. They also underwent massive busing programs aimed at integration but leading to a middle class exodus.
Which brings us to the question of the role of schools in determining whether cities have a strong middle class. When it comes to schools, most of the attention has been devoted to the second strategy: how to give poor children the skills they need to get good jobs and leave poverty behind. This is an extremely important goal but a very frustrating one because of the lack of consensus as to how it can be done, or even whether it is possible.
By comparison, very little attention has been paid to the schools' role in supporting the first strategy. Without attractive schools, the city's ability to build its middle class will be limited to those not needing schools. The lack of attention is frustrating, especially because educators know how to make schools attractive to middle class parents. Every superintendent of a wealthy suburb knows how to do it--or they lose their jobs. In Milwaukee, schools like Golda Meir, the language immersion schools, arts schools, Montessori schools, and others show it can be done in an urban environment.
Part of the explanation for the lack of attention to schools that would attract middle class families is that the needs of middle class children seem far less pressing than those of poor kids. Educators know that the middle class kids will probably survive--but if they leave how well will the city survive? There is sometimes the view that the schools can serve one group or the other and must choose between them. Programs targeted at different groups may be attacked as unfair or discriminatory.
Thursday, August 19, 2004
Charter school achievement follies continue
A while back, Schools Now noted that state test averages for Milwaukee charter schools were disappointing. It also suggested two possible reasons: they were mostly new schools and there was no information on how students were doing before entering the charter school.
Now the New York Times has glommed onto a study done by the American Federation of Teachers of 4th grade scores on the NAEP for charter schools nationwide. The Times swallowed whole the claim that this study shows charters underperform public schools, causing widespread outrage among charter school supporters. (For links to the various points and counter thrusts, see this post by Eduwonk.)
Critics of the Times and the AFT pointed out the claims ignored differences in students. In fact, when matched by ethnic groups, apparently performance by charter schools was about the same as that for public schools. In other words, these critics are damning the AFT for not doing a value-added analysis, for not taking account of the students in the schools.
Schools Now sees a glimmer of a breakthrough here. Many of these same critics resisted the idea that in judging public schools adjustments needed to be made for the students, often with the accusation that doing so would signal to those students that not much was expected of them. Having recognized the need for value-added analysis with charter schools, perhaps they will see the need when it comes to judging all schools.
Eventually perhaps, the silliness of studies that attempt to measure all charter schools or all voucher schools will also be recognized. That a school has a charter or accepts vouchers tells nothing about the school's educational programs or its teachers. So we are likely to see the same variability of educational effectiveness among charter and voucher schools as among conventional public schools. Trying to make generalizations about outcomes from charter schools is a little like trying to prove that all schools whose name begins with B outperform their peers. Depending on the sample chosen (and who is paying the researchers' bills), sometimes they will do better and sometimes they will do worse.
Now the New York Times has glommed onto a study done by the American Federation of Teachers of 4th grade scores on the NAEP for charter schools nationwide. The Times swallowed whole the claim that this study shows charters underperform public schools, causing widespread outrage among charter school supporters. (For links to the various points and counter thrusts, see this post by Eduwonk.)
Critics of the Times and the AFT pointed out the claims ignored differences in students. In fact, when matched by ethnic groups, apparently performance by charter schools was about the same as that for public schools. In other words, these critics are damning the AFT for not doing a value-added analysis, for not taking account of the students in the schools.
Schools Now sees a glimmer of a breakthrough here. Many of these same critics resisted the idea that in judging public schools adjustments needed to be made for the students, often with the accusation that doing so would signal to those students that not much was expected of them. Having recognized the need for value-added analysis with charter schools, perhaps they will see the need when it comes to judging all schools.
Eventually perhaps, the silliness of studies that attempt to measure all charter schools or all voucher schools will also be recognized. That a school has a charter or accepts vouchers tells nothing about the school's educational programs or its teachers. So we are likely to see the same variability of educational effectiveness among charter and voucher schools as among conventional public schools. Trying to make generalizations about outcomes from charter schools is a little like trying to prove that all schools whose name begins with B outperform their peers. Depending on the sample chosen (and who is paying the researchers' bills), sometimes they will do better and sometimes they will do worse.
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Andrekopoulos' contract extended?
An article in Milwaukee's Journal Sentinel predicts the MPS board is likely to extend superintendent Bill Andrekopoulos' contract. If true, this is good news. The article (and an editorial) lists many of the reasons why this is good new: continuity, progress in many areas. Andrekopoulos brings two particular strengths to the job: a willingness to build on the programs of his predecessors rather than changing direction and an understanding and fascination with ways to apply management theory to the district.
Update: The board voted 6-3 to extend his contract.
Voting for: Joe Dannecker, Barbara Horton, Ken Johnson, Jennifer Morales, Larry O'Neill, and Jeff Spence.
Voting against: Tom Balistreri, Peter Blewett, and Charlene Hardin.
Update: The board voted 6-3 to extend his contract.
Voting for: Joe Dannecker, Barbara Horton, Ken Johnson, Jennifer Morales, Larry O'Neill, and Jeff Spence.
Voting against: Tom Balistreri, Peter Blewett, and Charlene Hardin.
Third Education Group is here
Richard Phelps and I have just launched a new web site, the Third Education Group. We view it as an alternative to both the highly ideological educational establishment journals and other sites that defend the status quo, generally from a leftward perspective, and the think tanks and other sites that have critiqued the status quo but have become increasingly exclusive in their membership and intolerant of a wider discussion. Unlike Schools Now, its focus will not be specifically on Milwaukee.
As part of this, we plan to include a peer-reviewed on-line journal devoted to educational policy issues and open to any sound research so long as the conclusions are based on the evidence.
Please join us.
As part of this, we plan to include a peer-reviewed on-line journal devoted to educational policy issues and open to any sound research so long as the conclusions are based on the evidence.
Please join us.
Monday, August 16, 2004
Student transfers under NCLB
An article in today's Journal Sentinel notes that only 280 MPS students are likely to transfer from one school to another under provisions of the federal No Child Left Behind act. Similar numbers in other districts have led to accusations that the districts are deliberately sabotaging student choice.
It is perhaps not surprising that this provision of the NCLB has disappointed its supporters. For one thing, timing is problematic. In MPS, parents start choosing schools in December of the previous year. By the time the NCLB ratings of schools are published, the most popular schools are likely to be filled.
As the superintendent points out, it is not clear that a transferring student student will get a better education in the new school. The new school might actually have lower test scores than the old one, so long as its scores have been showing improvement. And since the ratings of schools are based on absolute scores rather than a value-added measure, a high rating might reflect more the student population than the effectiveness of the school.
It is perhaps not surprising that this provision of the NCLB has disappointed its supporters. For one thing, timing is problematic. In MPS, parents start choosing schools in December of the previous year. By the time the NCLB ratings of schools are published, the most popular schools are likely to be filled.
As the superintendent points out, it is not clear that a transferring student student will get a better education in the new school. The new school might actually have lower test scores than the old one, so long as its scores have been showing improvement. And since the ratings of schools are based on absolute scores rather than a value-added measure, a high rating might reflect more the student population than the effectiveness of the school.
Sunday, August 15, 2004
Schools barred from school choice program
An article in the Journal Sentinel notes that 21 schools were not allowed to participate in this fall's voucher program, because they did not complete planning. It is unclear how many, if any, of these schools would have tried to participate before new rules were passed. It appears that most, if not all, were simply not ready to open. The article states that none had received city occupancy permits, implying that they had not found viable space to operate.
Are MPS teachers underpaid?
The current Milwaukee Magazine has a point-counterpoint about teacher compensation (not available online). Refreshingly, they found a current teacher who argues that pay, especially considering benefits and vacations, is very fair and teachers should stop whining. (I wonder how things are going for him in the faculty lunchroom.)
A retired teacher argues that MPS has a retention problem. Interestingly, his argument is not that MPS teachers are poorly paid compared to suburban teachers, but that the working conditions in MPS are far more difficult than in the suburbs, leading to teachers leaving. This argument might suggest that the answer would lie in improving working conditions. Increasing pay might simply result in more unhappy teachers who felt they could not afford to leave.
One step might be to make sure that MPS teachers had the tools they need to succeed. Too often, texts and curricula are adopted with little testing of their effectiveness.
A retired teacher argues that MPS has a retention problem. Interestingly, his argument is not that MPS teachers are poorly paid compared to suburban teachers, but that the working conditions in MPS are far more difficult than in the suburbs, leading to teachers leaving. This argument might suggest that the answer would lie in improving working conditions. Increasing pay might simply result in more unhappy teachers who felt they could not afford to leave.
One step might be to make sure that MPS teachers had the tools they need to succeed. Too often, texts and curricula are adopted with little testing of their effectiveness.
Are vouchers conservative?
I have been out of town for the past two weeks, which helps explain the lack of new posts. I will try to catch up with Milwaukee education news over the next few days.
A Journal Sentinel article notes that Republican state representative Scott Jensen has been hired by the Alliance for School Choice to promote charter and voucher programs in other states. Despite quoted objections from critics, this arrangement appears to have been approved by the state ethics board. Jensen is known as a skillful legislator who is also very partisan and increasingly conservative.
What does this say about the strategic direction taken by the dominant pro-choice group? It appears they have decided to cast their lot with conservatives and Republicans and have given up any hope of forging a bipartisan coalition in favor of increasing educational options for poor children.
One strength of the choice coalition of several years ago was that it was truly bipartisan, including people who might disagree with the Republican positions on most other issues. In addition to Republican governor Tommy Thompson and most Republican legislators, it included Milwaukee mayor John Norquist, Democratic legislators Polly Williams and Antonio Riley, and a majority of the Milwaukee school board. The apparent switch in strategy seems puzzling.
Today's Journal Sentinel has an article (not available on the web apparently) that gives further evidence of the growing willingness of voucher groups to forego any effort at bipartisanship. A new group, called People of Color United, is sponsoring a group of anti-Kerry ads on black radio stations. According to the article the new group is an outgrowth of DC Parents for School Choice. Apparently a major contributor is Patrick Rooney, a long-time supporter of choice. (See this article in Slate, which attributes his support--wrongly, I think--to his insurance interests.)
As I noted earlier, the lack of support by minority and other Democratic legislators who represent neighborhoods benefitting from choice and charters has frustrated the supporters of those programs. These efforts by choice supporters would seem to make it more difficult to gain that support.
A Journal Sentinel article notes that Republican state representative Scott Jensen has been hired by the Alliance for School Choice to promote charter and voucher programs in other states. Despite quoted objections from critics, this arrangement appears to have been approved by the state ethics board. Jensen is known as a skillful legislator who is also very partisan and increasingly conservative.
What does this say about the strategic direction taken by the dominant pro-choice group? It appears they have decided to cast their lot with conservatives and Republicans and have given up any hope of forging a bipartisan coalition in favor of increasing educational options for poor children.
One strength of the choice coalition of several years ago was that it was truly bipartisan, including people who might disagree with the Republican positions on most other issues. In addition to Republican governor Tommy Thompson and most Republican legislators, it included Milwaukee mayor John Norquist, Democratic legislators Polly Williams and Antonio Riley, and a majority of the Milwaukee school board. The apparent switch in strategy seems puzzling.
Today's Journal Sentinel has an article (not available on the web apparently) that gives further evidence of the growing willingness of voucher groups to forego any effort at bipartisanship. A new group, called People of Color United, is sponsoring a group of anti-Kerry ads on black radio stations. According to the article the new group is an outgrowth of DC Parents for School Choice. Apparently a major contributor is Patrick Rooney, a long-time supporter of choice. (See this article in Slate, which attributes his support--wrongly, I think--to his insurance interests.)
As I noted earlier, the lack of support by minority and other Democratic legislators who represent neighborhoods benefitting from choice and charters has frustrated the supporters of those programs. These efforts by choice supporters would seem to make it more difficult to gain that support.
Friday, July 30, 2004
Does national certification help students?
An article in today's Journal Sentinel announces that a local foundation has given $20,000 to increase the number of teachers with national certification. The reader is left with two puzzles:
1. Why is the grant being announced by Milwaukee's mayor rather than the MPS superintendent? The superintendent is strangely missing from the article?
2. Will this grant help students? Despite the millions of dollars spent nationwide on national certification of teachers (called National Board for Professional Teaching Standards or NBPTS), there is remarkable little research on its effectiveness.
A recent study by Goldhaber--the most favorable to certification so far--found that students of teachers gaining NBPTS certification did slightly better, on average, than students whose teachers attempted certification but failed to gain it. But it did not find that the teachers improved their effectiveness as the result of the process. Nor did it find that those applying for certification, as a group, were more effective than those who did not. This latter finding seems particularly surprising since one might expect that teachers willing to put in the time and effort for certification would be more committed than their colleagues.
Based on this study it is hard to figure out how NBPTS certification could be used to improve teaching. Knowing that one group of teachers is slightly more effective than another brings benefits only if, as a result, more of the first group stays in teaching or more of the second leaves. Many of the unsuccessful NBPTS applicants are more effective, as judged by student scores, than many of the successful ones. Based on the standard deviations given, I estimate that about 44% of the unsuccessful applicants had higher student gains than the average successful applicant. So NBPTS would not serve as a particularly effective screening device.
Education has a long history of embracing panaceas that lack a research justification, only to eventually abandon them and turn to the next one. Let's hope that NBPTS certification proves to be the exception.
1. Why is the grant being announced by Milwaukee's mayor rather than the MPS superintendent? The superintendent is strangely missing from the article?
2. Will this grant help students? Despite the millions of dollars spent nationwide on national certification of teachers (called National Board for Professional Teaching Standards or NBPTS), there is remarkable little research on its effectiveness.
A recent study by Goldhaber--the most favorable to certification so far--found that students of teachers gaining NBPTS certification did slightly better, on average, than students whose teachers attempted certification but failed to gain it. But it did not find that the teachers improved their effectiveness as the result of the process. Nor did it find that those applying for certification, as a group, were more effective than those who did not. This latter finding seems particularly surprising since one might expect that teachers willing to put in the time and effort for certification would be more committed than their colleagues.
Based on this study it is hard to figure out how NBPTS certification could be used to improve teaching. Knowing that one group of teachers is slightly more effective than another brings benefits only if, as a result, more of the first group stays in teaching or more of the second leaves. Many of the unsuccessful NBPTS applicants are more effective, as judged by student scores, than many of the successful ones. Based on the standard deviations given, I estimate that about 44% of the unsuccessful applicants had higher student gains than the average successful applicant. So NBPTS would not serve as a particularly effective screening device.
Education has a long history of embracing panaceas that lack a research justification, only to eventually abandon them and turn to the next one. Let's hope that NBPTS certification proves to be the exception.
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
TABOR, Rest in Peace
The so-called taxpayers' bill of rights (TABOR) died today when three Republican senators said they would vote against the proposed constitutional amendment that would limit spending by local units of government. Supporters promised to bring it back next year. In my view, TABOR is an example of good politics leading to bad legislation.
Supporters of TABOR did a good job of casting it as a choice between taxes and spending. But it also shifted control from local to state government. Ironically, Republicans have traditionally been the strongest advocates of local control, of keeping government as close to the people as possible.
Local government has always been in danger of being solely an insiders' game, followed only by those with a direct interest, such as employees and contractors. By taking away the spending decision, TABOR would likely accelerate that tendency, as I mentioned earlier.
Supporters of TABOR did a good job of casting it as a choice between taxes and spending. But it also shifted control from local to state government. Ironically, Republicans have traditionally been the strongest advocates of local control, of keeping government as close to the people as possible.
Local government has always been in danger of being solely an insiders' game, followed only by those with a direct interest, such as employees and contractors. By taking away the spending decision, TABOR would likely accelerate that tendency, as I mentioned earlier.
Labor Negotiation Follies
School district labor negotiations get a good deal more complicated in school districts than in private industry, where management and the unions are separate and distinct. The classical model is especially challenged when a majority of the school board owes its election to the support of the union. In the worst case scenario, the union is essentially negotiating with itself. Management negotiators may find themselves fighting a two-front war, wondering whether the board will back them up at crunch time.
This is no theoretical concern. The last time MPS had a union-backed majority, then-president Joe Fisher took it upon himself to meet with the union and came back with an agreement that included most of the union demands. These included the expansion of the early-retirement pension plan, whose ballooning costs is helping put a continuing squeeze on the schools' budgets.
Will history repeat itself? There are disturbing signs that it may. Once again, the board has a union-backed majority. And once again, it has a president--now Peter Blewett--who seems eager to inject himself into the negotiations. Word is out that, like Fisher, he has visited with union officials and seems to be making himself into an advocate of the union position.
This is no theoretical concern. The last time MPS had a union-backed majority, then-president Joe Fisher took it upon himself to meet with the union and came back with an agreement that included most of the union demands. These included the expansion of the early-retirement pension plan, whose ballooning costs is helping put a continuing squeeze on the schools' budgets.
Will history repeat itself? There are disturbing signs that it may. Once again, the board has a union-backed majority. And once again, it has a president--now Peter Blewett--who seems eager to inject himself into the negotiations. Word is out that, like Fisher, he has visited with union officials and seems to be making himself into an advocate of the union position.
Welcome from the Blogosphere
Schools Now got its first link from another blog. Daryl Cobranchi runs a blog called Homeschool and Other Education Stuff. Lots of interesting commentary and links.
Now if we can just generate some arguments in the comments section, it will feel like a real blog.
Now if we can just generate some arguments in the comments section, it will feel like a real blog.
Saturday, July 24, 2004
The permanent superintendent class
Today's Washington Post has an article by Sewell Chan, "Four Finalists Chosen For D.C. Schools Chief." Two of the four were candidates for Milwaukee superintendent seven years ago.
A permanent rotating superintendent class seems to have developed. They serve a few years in a district and then move on to another district, often as they are eased out from the first district. The same names keep reappearing in searches. It seems to reassure school boards if their new superintendent is already a superintendent. It does not seem to matter much whether the person was successful.
There are several disadvantages with this approach. The new person comes in without a deep understanding of the district, of what has already been tried in the district, or of the strengths and weaknesses of the people. As new superintendents attempt to make their mark, initiatives come and go before any has a chance to make a lasting impression.
While certainly no guarantee of success, I prefer the route Milwaukee chose the last two times: choosing an internal candidate. Often the most cogent critiques of what a district is doing wrong are in the district. And this person is much more likely to understand the people.
Update: John Merrow has an interesting article on the current Washington DC superintendent search and the tendancy to look at the same people over and over. His suggested solution is quite a bit more draconian: turn the district over to a bankruptcy firm, to cut and restructure.
A permanent rotating superintendent class seems to have developed. They serve a few years in a district and then move on to another district, often as they are eased out from the first district. The same names keep reappearing in searches. It seems to reassure school boards if their new superintendent is already a superintendent. It does not seem to matter much whether the person was successful.
There are several disadvantages with this approach. The new person comes in without a deep understanding of the district, of what has already been tried in the district, or of the strengths and weaknesses of the people. As new superintendents attempt to make their mark, initiatives come and go before any has a chance to make a lasting impression.
While certainly no guarantee of success, I prefer the route Milwaukee chose the last two times: choosing an internal candidate. Often the most cogent critiques of what a district is doing wrong are in the district. And this person is much more likely to understand the people.
Update: John Merrow has an interesting article on the current Washington DC superintendent search and the tendancy to look at the same people over and over. His suggested solution is quite a bit more draconian: turn the district over to a bankruptcy firm, to cut and restructure.
Friday, July 23, 2004
Do charter schools fall short?
An article published at EducationNews.org by Dennis Redovich criticizes the third grade reading results for Milwaukee charter schools. Redovich calculates that the percentage of students rated proficient and advanced is 84.9% statewide, 66.4% for MPS, and 43.2% for eight schools chartered by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee or the city of Milwaukee. (He has a line for schools chartered by MPS but has left it blank.)
Advocates for charter schools (including Schools Now) may find it easy to discount the Redovich analysis. For one thing, he is a long-time opponent of the charter and choice program who regards them as part of a conspiracy to destroy MPS. Also, his language is distinctively hyperbolic: "it is incredible that," "outrageously labels," "outrageous is too mild a term...!", "hypocrisy and stupidity in Milwaukee." (Full disclosure: some years ago I was dropped from his e-mail distribution for suggesting that milder language would be more effective.)
Yet the fact remains that for those hoping that charter schools would be a panacea for poor student achievement, the Milwaukee test scores so far are disappointing. Clearly expectations by some of the more starry-eyed supporters were unrealistic: getting rid of the public school bureaucracy does not solve all the problems of achievement among urban children.
Despite these data, it is not at all clear that the charter schools are doing less well than traditional schools:
1. These are new schools. It is increasingly evident that starting a school is difficult and it takes a while for the school to coalesce. As a result, student achievement usually suffers in the early years of a school, including with the few new MPS schools started in this period. Something of the same phenomenon seems to appear in grades where most of the students (but not the teachers) are new to the school, such as ninth grade and sixth grade; the latter helps explain the achievement advantage of K-8 schools over middle schools in MPS.
2. There is no information on how these students were doing before switching to the charter school. It seems plausible that a student struggling in a traditional school would be more likely to switch than one who was doing well. The early study of the Milwaukee choice program found that to be the case.
Also it should be noted that giving parents more choices is a good thing in itself. It is clear from enrollment numbers that there is a demand for alternatives.
Advocates for charter schools (including Schools Now) may find it easy to discount the Redovich analysis. For one thing, he is a long-time opponent of the charter and choice program who regards them as part of a conspiracy to destroy MPS. Also, his language is distinctively hyperbolic: "it is incredible that," "outrageously labels," "outrageous is too mild a term...!", "hypocrisy and stupidity in Milwaukee." (Full disclosure: some years ago I was dropped from his e-mail distribution for suggesting that milder language would be more effective.)
Yet the fact remains that for those hoping that charter schools would be a panacea for poor student achievement, the Milwaukee test scores so far are disappointing. Clearly expectations by some of the more starry-eyed supporters were unrealistic: getting rid of the public school bureaucracy does not solve all the problems of achievement among urban children.
Despite these data, it is not at all clear that the charter schools are doing less well than traditional schools:
1. These are new schools. It is increasingly evident that starting a school is difficult and it takes a while for the school to coalesce. As a result, student achievement usually suffers in the early years of a school, including with the few new MPS schools started in this period. Something of the same phenomenon seems to appear in grades where most of the students (but not the teachers) are new to the school, such as ninth grade and sixth grade; the latter helps explain the achievement advantage of K-8 schools over middle schools in MPS.
2. There is no information on how these students were doing before switching to the charter school. It seems plausible that a student struggling in a traditional school would be more likely to switch than one who was doing well. The early study of the Milwaukee choice program found that to be the case.
Also it should be noted that giving parents more choices is a good thing in itself. It is clear from enrollment numbers that there is a demand for alternatives.
Thursday, July 22, 2004
One more argument for value added measures
Wauwatosa, a Milwaukee suburb, is debating whether to close schools or bring in more students from outside the city through the state's open enrollment program. Most of these students are from Milwaukee and there lies the rub. According to the school superintendent these students change the culture and depress test scores. An article describes the debate while an opinion column attacks the suburb for using and then abandoning black students.
The test score issue, at least, would be less critical if schools were judged by the value added by the schools, rather than the absolute values of the test scores. Value-added measures compare schools' outputs to their inputs, reducing the incentive to avoid enrolling students who are behind.
The test score issue, at least, would be less critical if schools were judged by the value added by the schools, rather than the absolute values of the test scores. Value-added measures compare schools' outputs to their inputs, reducing the incentive to avoid enrolling students who are behind.
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
More on Bush "the Education President"
A previous post noted an article praising George W. Bush as the education president. When the moderator of an education discussion group posted this article, electronic road rage resulted. The article was described as "right wing crap" and as "homage to Bush"and its author as a "neo-Nazi war monger." Defenders of the article, including its author, responded in kind, describing liberals as "irrational, America-hating, lying, McCarthyite left that is doing so much to poison our society's political and intellectual discourse."
An easy conclusion is that this experience illustrates how much society's discourse has been poisoned. It particularly illustrates the use of labels to dismiss the need to look at the merits of an idea. To criticize an idea as "liberal" or "conservative" is often a way to try to shut down discussion, to say the idea is not worthy of discussion.
Yet the members of this group, despite their nastiness to each other, pretty much agree on some of the big issues of education: the need to test students and the need for effective programs to replace ineffective ones which too often were introduced for ideological reasons. In this they are largely in agreement with the thrust of the No Child Left Behind act and of the Bush educational initiative.
Yet, as the reaction to the article showed, they are by no means either Republicans or conservatives. And this hints at why the Bush educational legacy may be much more negative than the Bush educational plan would suggest.
NCLB is the one example I can recall where the Bush administration had genuine consultations with the Democrats. Initially the law enjoyed wide bi-partisan support. That it is now the Bush NCLB and not the Kennedy-Bush NCLB reflects in large part the administration's decision to play to its base rather than work for consensus. By being such a divisive president, Bush has made the reforms supported by members of this discussion group less politically viable, at least among Democrats.
An easy conclusion is that this experience illustrates how much society's discourse has been poisoned. It particularly illustrates the use of labels to dismiss the need to look at the merits of an idea. To criticize an idea as "liberal" or "conservative" is often a way to try to shut down discussion, to say the idea is not worthy of discussion.
Yet the members of this group, despite their nastiness to each other, pretty much agree on some of the big issues of education: the need to test students and the need for effective programs to replace ineffective ones which too often were introduced for ideological reasons. In this they are largely in agreement with the thrust of the No Child Left Behind act and of the Bush educational initiative.
Yet, as the reaction to the article showed, they are by no means either Republicans or conservatives. And this hints at why the Bush educational legacy may be much more negative than the Bush educational plan would suggest.
NCLB is the one example I can recall where the Bush administration had genuine consultations with the Democrats. Initially the law enjoyed wide bi-partisan support. That it is now the Bush NCLB and not the Kennedy-Bush NCLB reflects in large part the administration's decision to play to its base rather than work for consensus. By being such a divisive president, Bush has made the reforms supported by members of this discussion group less politically viable, at least among Democrats.
Governor wants deal on education
In an interview with the Journal Sentinel editorial board, Governor Doyle proposed a deal that would both allow the choice program to expand and increase funding for the SAGE low class program. The interview is described in both an article and an editorial.
At first glance, this proposal looks like a good deal for Milwaukee children, benefitting both those in the public schools and those in private schools. And that may be the catch: legislators from outside Milwaukee may feel it is too good a deal.
At first glance, this proposal looks like a good deal for Milwaukee children, benefitting both those in the public schools and those in private schools. And that may be the catch: legislators from outside Milwaukee may feel it is too good a deal.
Perverse incentives and school budgets
A Journal Sentinel article describes one of the perverse incentives in the Wisconsin spending caps. A bit of explanation is in order. Wisconsin puts a limit on the amount of money a school district can spend, based on the district's enrollment and the district's spending in the previous year. The latter creates a perverse incentive: to spend at the limit. If a district spends less than the limit it will be able to spend less in the future. So even if the district wants to spend less in one year, it does not wish to tie its hands in the future.
Technical detail: 75% of the unspent money is recoverable, but that means 25% is permanently lost. This creates another catch: if the district does decide to recover the 75% the following year, taxes may take a sudden jump since state aid is based on the previous year's spending.
Apparently, according to this article, several districts decided not to spend at the limit, in the expectation that the law would be changed. It was not, and now they are discovering that their future budgets will be lower because of their one-year decision.
Caps like these, although designed to set a ceiling on spending, in practice become a floor. As local taxpayers realize tax rates are set at the state rather than the local level their interest in local government declines. As a result, in my experience, local politics increasingly becomes an insider's game--dominated by employees and those pursuing a particular agenda. I was struck by the lack of interest in those appearing before our board in finding ways the money could be spent more effectively; practically everyone simply demanded more money. The irony, of course, is that spending more was the one thing the board could not do.
Technical detail: 75% of the unspent money is recoverable, but that means 25% is permanently lost. This creates another catch: if the district does decide to recover the 75% the following year, taxes may take a sudden jump since state aid is based on the previous year's spending.
Apparently, according to this article, several districts decided not to spend at the limit, in the expectation that the law would be changed. It was not, and now they are discovering that their future budgets will be lower because of their one-year decision.
Caps like these, although designed to set a ceiling on spending, in practice become a floor. As local taxpayers realize tax rates are set at the state rather than the local level their interest in local government declines. As a result, in my experience, local politics increasingly becomes an insider's game--dominated by employees and those pursuing a particular agenda. I was struck by the lack of interest in those appearing before our board in finding ways the money could be spent more effectively; practically everyone simply demanded more money. The irony, of course, is that spending more was the one thing the board could not do.
Monday, July 19, 2004
Liberals vs. conservatives and school reform
Wisconsinites who watch any television know that an election is on the way. While it seems unlikely that education will be a dominant issue in the next election, it will certainly be one of them. A current article in City Journal makes the case that Bush is Yes, the Education President, in part by discounting the role Democrats played in passing the No Child Left Behind Act.
There are dangers, I think, in allowing educational reforms to become too closely associated with one party or one ideological grouping. An obvious one is what happens if Bush is not reelected. Will the policies that show potential (annual testing, making sure programs are effective, expanding charter schools and other alternatives) be reversed if they are viewed as conservative and Republican initiatives? (Click here for one Democratic voice that supports most of the NCLB initiatives.)
A second is that it allows opponents of reform to change the subject; instead of talking about the merits of the reform, they concentrate on the politics of those supporting the reform. I saw this last winter when a group of inner-city Milwaukee legislators appeared before a group of their constituents who supported the school choice program. The legislators justified their votes against expanding the program by pointing to the politics of the bills' Republican sponsors. The proposals were not to benefit the black community, they argued, but part of a right-wing agenda.
This strategy of guilt by association is especially effective because urban education is at the intersection of two cultures: urban politics and education, both of which are far more liberal than American society as a whole.
There are dangers, I think, in allowing educational reforms to become too closely associated with one party or one ideological grouping. An obvious one is what happens if Bush is not reelected. Will the policies that show potential (annual testing, making sure programs are effective, expanding charter schools and other alternatives) be reversed if they are viewed as conservative and Republican initiatives? (Click here for one Democratic voice that supports most of the NCLB initiatives.)
A second is that it allows opponents of reform to change the subject; instead of talking about the merits of the reform, they concentrate on the politics of those supporting the reform. I saw this last winter when a group of inner-city Milwaukee legislators appeared before a group of their constituents who supported the school choice program. The legislators justified their votes against expanding the program by pointing to the politics of the bills' Republican sponsors. The proposals were not to benefit the black community, they argued, but part of a right-wing agenda.
This strategy of guilt by association is especially effective because urban education is at the intersection of two cultures: urban politics and education, both of which are far more liberal than American society as a whole.
Bilingual programs in the New York Times
In the New York Times, Samuel Friedman describes opposition from New York parents to their children being placed in bilingual programs. Having read earlier accounts similar to Freedman's in the past, I anticipated there might be similar opposition in Milwaukee.
My experience while on the Milwaukee school board with Hispanic parents' attitudes towards bilingual programs was quite different. As part of our neighborhood schools plan we did extensive surveys and held public hearings to ask parents what it would take for them to send their kids to the neighborhood school. One clear conclusion was that parents wanted more bilingual programs and they wanted them in their neighborhood school so that their children wouldn't have to ride a bus.
My own bias is that most children find it far easier than most adults to pick up a new language so that a long transition period is not needed in most cases. But in Milwaukee many Hispanic parents did not share that view. Perhaps parents in Milwaukee have so many choices that those who dislike bilingual programs simply do not choose them and have no reason to oppose them.
In essence, Friedman short-circuits the argument. Instead of demonstrating that bilingual programs are less effective than English immersion, he changes the subject to the actions of a stupid, insensitive bureaucracy.
My experience while on the Milwaukee school board with Hispanic parents' attitudes towards bilingual programs was quite different. As part of our neighborhood schools plan we did extensive surveys and held public hearings to ask parents what it would take for them to send their kids to the neighborhood school. One clear conclusion was that parents wanted more bilingual programs and they wanted them in their neighborhood school so that their children wouldn't have to ride a bus.
My own bias is that most children find it far easier than most adults to pick up a new language so that a long transition period is not needed in most cases. But in Milwaukee many Hispanic parents did not share that view. Perhaps parents in Milwaukee have so many choices that those who dislike bilingual programs simply do not choose them and have no reason to oppose them.
In essence, Friedman short-circuits the argument. Instead of demonstrating that bilingual programs are less effective than English immersion, he changes the subject to the actions of a stupid, insensitive bureaucracy.
More on closing choice schools
In my comments on Sarah Carr's article on banning two schools from the choice (voucher) program, I overlooked her implication that the law allowing that action was opposed by the choice coalition. In fact, as George Mitchell, points out in a letter to Carr, "Act 155, the law DPI correctly used this week, was developed with substantial
involvement from the school choice coalition."
One reason that the coalition had held back in earlier years from pushing such legislation was the belief among many members that the state Department of Public Instruction already had the power to cut off these schools for violating the reporting, financial, and other requirements of the program.
involvement from the school choice coalition."
One reason that the coalition had held back in earlier years from pushing such legislation was the belief among many members that the state Department of Public Instruction already had the power to cut off these schools for violating the reporting, financial, and other requirements of the program.
How precise are the tests?
In an earlier post, I expressed my unease at using a single test to make definitive conclusions about either a school or a student. Part of the problem is that individual students' results can vary quite a bit from one test to another. When MPS first introduced annual testing using the Terra Nova, it started with second graders. Wisconsin tested third using its own third grade reading test (called the WRCT). Thus for that first year MPS third graders were given two different reading tests. How well did the tests track each other?
See this figure comparing the third grade reading scores for the two tests. On average, students who did well on one also did better on the other, but the points do not fall on a straight line. For any individual student the story may be quite different: a student may do superbly on one and dismally on the other. Some of the difference may reflect differences in the tests: whether they were timed and differences in the kinds of questions. Some may reflect differences in the student's mood on test day.
Some opponents of testing might argue that that this lack of precision argues for doing away with the tests. I would argue the opposite: that it calls for more testing to better understand the student. The aim, after all, is not high test scores but skilled readers.
To take the medical analogy, if a test for a disease is one hundred percent accurate there is no reason to do additional tests. If however, the test often produces false positives or negatives, additional testing is called for.
See this figure comparing the third grade reading scores for the two tests. On average, students who did well on one also did better on the other, but the points do not fall on a straight line. For any individual student the story may be quite different: a student may do superbly on one and dismally on the other. Some of the difference may reflect differences in the tests: whether they were timed and differences in the kinds of questions. Some may reflect differences in the student's mood on test day.
Some opponents of testing might argue that that this lack of precision argues for doing away with the tests. I would argue the opposite: that it calls for more testing to better understand the student. The aim, after all, is not high test scores but skilled readers.
To take the medical analogy, if a test for a disease is one hundred percent accurate there is no reason to do additional tests. If however, the test often produces false positives or negatives, additional testing is called for.
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Two choice schools banned from program
Tomorrow's Journal Sentinel reports that Wisconsin has expelled Mandella School of Science and Math and Alex's Academics of Excellence from the Choice program. These two schools clearly had serious management problems for years and their termination was long overdue.
Despite their well-publicized financial and educational problems, the schools continued to attract students. Leaders at MPS should find this disturbing. Why would parents prefer a shaky private school to the local public schools? Have the parents tried the public school and found it wanting? Or do they have the impression that the public school is not nearly as anxious to enroll their students as are these two schools?
This action raises issues of what level of regulation is best for the Choice schools. Pure free market theorists would expect the schools to have collapsed on their own as parents found better schools. That they did not may reflect parents' sense of desperation. In practice most markets, such as the stock market, depend on regulation that allows consumers the assurance that minimal standards are met.
The danger is that the Department of Public Instruction will use this precedent to further regulate the schools, taking away some of their distinctiveness. A quote in the article is ominous: "We believe taxpayers and parents should have the same kind of accountability measures that are in place for public schools." Does that mean, for example, that DPI will resume pushing for certified teachers?
Update (July 23): An editorial in today's Journal Sentinel makes much the same two points:
1. Cutting off the two schools is a good thing.
2. But the comment about wanting to apply the same standards as for public schools is worrisome.
Despite their well-publicized financial and educational problems, the schools continued to attract students. Leaders at MPS should find this disturbing. Why would parents prefer a shaky private school to the local public schools? Have the parents tried the public school and found it wanting? Or do they have the impression that the public school is not nearly as anxious to enroll their students as are these two schools?
This action raises issues of what level of regulation is best for the Choice schools. Pure free market theorists would expect the schools to have collapsed on their own as parents found better schools. That they did not may reflect parents' sense of desperation. In practice most markets, such as the stock market, depend on regulation that allows consumers the assurance that minimal standards are met.
The danger is that the Department of Public Instruction will use this precedent to further regulate the schools, taking away some of their distinctiveness. A quote in the article is ominous: "We believe taxpayers and parents should have the same kind of accountability measures that are in place for public schools." Does that mean, for example, that DPI will resume pushing for certified teachers?
Update (July 23): An editorial in today's Journal Sentinel makes much the same two points:
1. Cutting off the two schools is a good thing.
2. But the comment about wanting to apply the same standards as for public schools is worrisome.
Wisconsin releases third grade reading scores
The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction released its scores for schools for the third grade reading scores for the 2003-04 school year. A Journal Sentinel article noted that both statewide and for Milwaukee the percentage of students rated proficient had increased. This seems to fit the pattern of progress in the early grades, coupled with stagnation at the high school level.
Schools Now is a strong advocate of measuring student progress. However, there is a tendency to overinterpret the results of a single test, either to declare overall success or to rate schools. We will be returning periodically to the issues of using the results of many tests to get a more complete picture of how well students are learning.
Schools Now is a strong advocate of measuring student progress. However, there is a tendency to overinterpret the results of a single test, either to declare overall success or to rate schools. We will be returning periodically to the issues of using the results of many tests to get a more complete picture of how well students are learning.
Monday, July 12, 2004
Choice and charter schools feel squeeze
Tomorrow morning's Journal Sentinel has a letter from the president of the Downtown Montessori Academy, defending charter schools and protesting the WEAC (Wisconsin Education Association Council) attacks on them. Full disclosure: for my connection to Downtown Montessori, click here. An earlier post discusses the article referred to in the letter.
A squeeze is likely soon on choice and charter school enrollment:
1. Choice (voucher) schools: State law limits the number of choice seats to 15% of MPS enrollment, or about 15,000 students, a cap that is expected to be hit in the next year. The governor vetoed proposals to raise the cap, leading to the spread of lawn signs asking him to allow the cap to be raised. It is as yet unclear how seats will be allocated to schools once the cap is reached--or how students will be selected.
2. MPS Charter Schools: About six years ago, then-superintendent Alan Brown signed an agreement (called a "memorandum of understanding" or mou) with the MTEA (the Milwaukee teachers' union) to cap enrollment at non-MPS organizations, including charter schools, at 8% of MPS' or about 8,000 students. A justification for the mou was that the MTEA had an injunction against such contracts, but this was overturned shortly afterwards. The mou was not approved by the school board. The number of students in charters and other contracted programs will soon bump up against this cap.
3. Other Charter Programs: Charters issued by the Milwaukee common council and University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee are not directly affected by these caps, but their number has been small and they have recently been a particular target of the state union. It is unclear whether the new mayor or a majority of the council will favor new charters, particularly if MPS is unable to continue issuing them.
This is likely to be a continuing saga.
A squeeze is likely soon on choice and charter school enrollment:
1. Choice (voucher) schools: State law limits the number of choice seats to 15% of MPS enrollment, or about 15,000 students, a cap that is expected to be hit in the next year. The governor vetoed proposals to raise the cap, leading to the spread of lawn signs asking him to allow the cap to be raised. It is as yet unclear how seats will be allocated to schools once the cap is reached--or how students will be selected.
2. MPS Charter Schools: About six years ago, then-superintendent Alan Brown signed an agreement (called a "memorandum of understanding" or mou) with the MTEA (the Milwaukee teachers' union) to cap enrollment at non-MPS organizations, including charter schools, at 8% of MPS' or about 8,000 students. A justification for the mou was that the MTEA had an injunction against such contracts, but this was overturned shortly afterwards. The mou was not approved by the school board. The number of students in charters and other contracted programs will soon bump up against this cap.
3. Other Charter Programs: Charters issued by the Milwaukee common council and University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee are not directly affected by these caps, but their number has been small and they have recently been a particular target of the state union. It is unclear whether the new mayor or a majority of the council will favor new charters, particularly if MPS is unable to continue issuing them.
This is likely to be a continuing saga.
Sunday, July 11, 2004
J-S finds foes of NCLB are all talk
In Law's foes are all talk, no action, Alan Borsuk describes the lack of action to challenge the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. The big news is that there is no news, despite a standing offer from the National Education Association to fund a state challenge and an opinion from Wisconsin's attorney general that the law is an unfunded mandate.
Borsuk suggests several reasons for the lack of a challenge, most notably the amount of aid involved: $76.8 million for Milwaukee Public Schools, about seven percent of the MPS budget. This figure, while hardly small, is a reminder of the relatively minor role of the federal government in the MPS budget.
Bad decisions can take away far more funds from education than the federal government puts in. For example, an earlier article says that $63.9 million of the next budget is to go towards pensions, with most of the increase going towards the second pension plan that encourages teachers to take early retirement. Meanwhile, $195 million will go to health insurance, according to the same article. This suggests that even a very large increase in federal funding would be quickly eaten up by rising MPS health and pension costs. The annual increase in pension and health costs is $23.1 million--or over one-third of total federal aid.
Borsuk suggests several reasons for the lack of a challenge, most notably the amount of aid involved: $76.8 million for Milwaukee Public Schools, about seven percent of the MPS budget. This figure, while hardly small, is a reminder of the relatively minor role of the federal government in the MPS budget.
Bad decisions can take away far more funds from education than the federal government puts in. For example, an earlier article says that $63.9 million of the next budget is to go towards pensions, with most of the increase going towards the second pension plan that encourages teachers to take early retirement. Meanwhile, $195 million will go to health insurance, according to the same article. This suggests that even a very large increase in federal funding would be quickly eaten up by rising MPS health and pension costs. The annual increase in pension and health costs is $23.1 million--or over one-third of total federal aid.
Friday, July 09, 2004
Krug ends congressional race
In a press release, state representative Shirley Krug announced she was ending her campaign for U.S. Congress. Most important accomplishment listed: "My Milwaukee Neighborhood Schools Initiative created over 11,000 new classroom seats for the Milwaukee Public Schools without raising property taxes or state spending."
Although the NSI is still a work in progress, it has already led to a substantial increase in classrooms in overcrowded Milwaukee neighborhoods, to a series of interesting partnerships between MPS and community organizations, and to an increase in specialty programs such as Montessori.
Krug's skill in getting this measure into the state's budget bill and the challenges she faced have been underreported. First, she was Democratic minority leader of the assembly at the time; typically, only the majority party leadership has much influence on the state budget. Many in the Milwaukee delegation--including her fellow congressional candidates Tim Carpenter and Gwen Moore--seemed hostile towards the notion of neighborhood schools and itching for an excuse to shoot it down. The proposal was also widely resented by many outstate legislators who regarded it as too generous to Milwaukee. Despite these odds, she was able to maneuver this proposal into the governor's budget, and, along with Antonio Riley, through the legislative process.
Although the NSI is still a work in progress, it has already led to a substantial increase in classrooms in overcrowded Milwaukee neighborhoods, to a series of interesting partnerships between MPS and community organizations, and to an increase in specialty programs such as Montessori.
Krug's skill in getting this measure into the state's budget bill and the challenges she faced have been underreported. First, she was Democratic minority leader of the assembly at the time; typically, only the majority party leadership has much influence on the state budget. Many in the Milwaukee delegation--including her fellow congressional candidates Tim Carpenter and Gwen Moore--seemed hostile towards the notion of neighborhood schools and itching for an excuse to shoot it down. The proposal was also widely resented by many outstate legislators who regarded it as too generous to Milwaukee. Despite these odds, she was able to maneuver this proposal into the governor's budget, and, along with Antonio Riley, through the legislative process.
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
Taxes and Choice/Charters
Tomorrow's Journal Sentinel has an article by Alan Borsuk describing the argument between the state teacher's union and supporters of choice and charters about funding for those schools ("Choice program debate turns fiscal"). Despite the many convolutions in the state funding formulas, the argument basically depends on assumptions about where the children from these schools would go if the choice and charter programs were eliminated.
The teacher's union assumes that most would not choose the public schools, betraying a striking lack of faith in public education. By supporting fewer students the taxpayers would be ahead, in WEAC's view. If, however, most moved to the more expensive public schools (either because they found the public schools acceptable or felt they had no other choice), taxes would rise.
The possibilities implied by the WEAC strategy of cutting taxes by reducing the number of students educated at public expense have barely been scratched. Rather than lamenting the dropout rate, for example, this logic implies it should be applauded for reducing the amount taxpayers must spend on education.
Here are links to the first and second fiscal bureau reports.
The teacher's union assumes that most would not choose the public schools, betraying a striking lack of faith in public education. By supporting fewer students the taxpayers would be ahead, in WEAC's view. If, however, most moved to the more expensive public schools (either because they found the public schools acceptable or felt they had no other choice), taxes would rise.
The possibilities implied by the WEAC strategy of cutting taxes by reducing the number of students educated at public expense have barely been scratched. Rather than lamenting the dropout rate, for example, this logic implies it should be applauded for reducing the amount taxpayers must spend on education.
Here are links to the first and second fiscal bureau reports.
Does NCLB bite schools?
An article in today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel points out that, despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the No Child Left Behind law, the repercussions on schools have been mild, at least so far ("Education law lacks expected bite"). The most serious consequence of being put on the "needs improvement" list seems to be the resulting humiliation.
Both defenders and critics of NCLB are likely to take comfort from this conclusion: defenders because the sky has not fallen, critics because the sky has not fallen enough to cause real change. The latter, of course, requires those criticizing NCLB for doing too much to shift gears and attack for doing too little.
The harsh attacks on NCLB have encouraged its defenders to close ranks and deny the need for any improvements in the law. As presently written, schools identified for improvement overwhelmingly serve low-income students. A variety of models, often called value-added, have been proposed to account for the added challenges for schools serving those students. For an example of a rating system of schools that incorporates student poverty, see this article that used data from Milwaukee Public Schools. Other value-added ratings adjust for test scores of incoming students, but these are mainly applicable to middle schools and above since students are seldom tested before they start elementary school.
The use of poverty in rating schools has run into ideological opposition, notably from the Education Trust, who fear that such use would reinforce lower-expectations for low-income students.
Both defenders and critics of NCLB are likely to take comfort from this conclusion: defenders because the sky has not fallen, critics because the sky has not fallen enough to cause real change. The latter, of course, requires those criticizing NCLB for doing too much to shift gears and attack for doing too little.
The harsh attacks on NCLB have encouraged its defenders to close ranks and deny the need for any improvements in the law. As presently written, schools identified for improvement overwhelmingly serve low-income students. A variety of models, often called value-added, have been proposed to account for the added challenges for schools serving those students. For an example of a rating system of schools that incorporates student poverty, see this article that used data from Milwaukee Public Schools. Other value-added ratings adjust for test scores of incoming students, but these are mainly applicable to middle schools and above since students are seldom tested before they start elementary school.
The use of poverty in rating schools has run into ideological opposition, notably from the Education Trust, who fear that such use would reinforce lower-expectations for low-income students.
Sunday, July 04, 2004
Journal Sentinel looks at school funding
An article by Amy Hetzner in today's Milwaukee Sentinel gives a thoroughly depressing picture of the insolubility of Wisconsin's school financing problem ("No solution in sight for baffling school funding problems"). A sidebar lists four proposals from various groups none of which seem politically viable.
While most of the information in the article will come as no surprise to anyone following Wisconsin's educational issues, Hetzner puts an unusual spin on the QEO (qualified economic offer). The QEO allows school districts to impose contracts on teachers' unions so long as the total increase in salaries and benefits is at least 3.8%, and the other terms are unchanged. This law is normally considered an aid to school boards in holding down costs and giving them leverage in negotiations. Thus it is widely assumed, at least among school board members, that ending the QEO (as proposed by the Governor's Taskforce on Educational Excellence), would raise the costs of education and result in further cuts to school programs.
But, Hetzner points to a counter argument. In this view ending the QEO would encourage more aggressiveness on the part of districts to attack the rising cost of benefits. Under the QEO law a district could not impose a new contract unless it kept the same benefits. Thus districts try to control costs mainly by holding down salary increases. Without the QEO, in this argument, districts would be much more motivated to challenge benefit packages.
I find this argument unconvincing even if plausible. The problem is that without the QEO it is likely that many labor contracts will go to arbitration. Would these arbitrators be willing to clamp down on benefit costs, especially if doing so antagonized the unions and put at risk future arbitration work?
While most of the information in the article will come as no surprise to anyone following Wisconsin's educational issues, Hetzner puts an unusual spin on the QEO (qualified economic offer). The QEO allows school districts to impose contracts on teachers' unions so long as the total increase in salaries and benefits is at least 3.8%, and the other terms are unchanged. This law is normally considered an aid to school boards in holding down costs and giving them leverage in negotiations. Thus it is widely assumed, at least among school board members, that ending the QEO (as proposed by the Governor's Taskforce on Educational Excellence), would raise the costs of education and result in further cuts to school programs.
But, Hetzner points to a counter argument. In this view ending the QEO would encourage more aggressiveness on the part of districts to attack the rising cost of benefits. Under the QEO law a district could not impose a new contract unless it kept the same benefits. Thus districts try to control costs mainly by holding down salary increases. Without the QEO, in this argument, districts would be much more motivated to challenge benefit packages.
I find this argument unconvincing even if plausible. The problem is that without the QEO it is likely that many labor contracts will go to arbitration. Would these arbitrators be willing to clamp down on benefit costs, especially if doing so antagonized the unions and put at risk future arbitration work?
Saturday, July 03, 2004
First reviews from What Works Clearinghouse
The What Works Clearinghouse is a federally funded website aimed at evaluating research on various educational programs. It has finally published its first reviews at http://www.w-w-c.org/.
This is important for those of us interested in Milwaukee schools because one of the first topics is middle school math programs. Several years ago, Milwaukee Public Schools adopted the Connected Mathematics Project for its middle schools. CMP is one of several programs that have come under fire nationally, sometimes described as "fuzzy math." (See Mathematically Correct and NYC Hold for the criticisms that have been leveled at CMP and similar programs.)
As middle school students, my own daughter and her friends, good math students, criticized it for being confusing and overly elementary.
The CMP website lists five studies as supporting the effectiveness of CMP. What Works Clearinghouse rejects two of these as not meeting its expectations for scientific research. It lists the other three (along with two others) as still being evaluated.
This is important for those of us interested in Milwaukee schools because one of the first topics is middle school math programs. Several years ago, Milwaukee Public Schools adopted the Connected Mathematics Project for its middle schools. CMP is one of several programs that have come under fire nationally, sometimes described as "fuzzy math." (See Mathematically Correct and NYC Hold for the criticisms that have been leveled at CMP and similar programs.)
As middle school students, my own daughter and her friends, good math students, criticized it for being confusing and overly elementary.
The CMP website lists five studies as supporting the effectiveness of CMP. What Works Clearinghouse rejects two of these as not meeting its expectations for scientific research. It lists the other three (along with two others) as still being evaluated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)