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.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)