Education News from Around America

from Education Next by Jay P. Greene

When I wrote my two part critique of the Gates Foundation strategy, one of our frequent comment-writers, GGW, asked: "What would you do if asked by Gates how to better donate his (and Warren Buffett's) billions?"

Here is a brief answer to that question: Philanthropists with billions of dollars to devote to education reform should build new institutions and stop trying to fix old ones.

In general, existing institutions don't want to be fixed. There are reasons why current public schools operate as they do and the people who benefit from that will resist any effort to change it. Those who benefit from status quo arrangements also tend to be better positioned than reformers to repel attempts by outsiders to make significant changes. The history of education reform is littered with failed efforts by philanthropists.

Instead, private donors have had much better success addressing problems by building new institutions. And competition from newly built institutions can have a greater positive impact on existing institutions than trying to reform them directly.

Let's consider one of the greatest accomplishments in American education philanthropy. In the late 19th century, America's leading universities (Harvard, Yale, Princeton) were badly in need of reform. They were still operated primarily as religious seminaries and not as modern, scientific institutions. Rather than trying to reform them directly, major philanthropists built new universities modeled after German scientific institutions. John D. Rockefeller and Marshall Field helped found the University of Chicago. Leland Stanford built Stanford University. A group of private donors built Johns Hopkins. Cornelius Vanderbilt founded Vanderbilt. All of these universities imitated German universities with their emphasis on the scientific method and research and were enormously successful at it. Eventually Harvard, Yale, and Princeton recognized the competitive threat from these German-modeled upstarts and made their own transition from a seminary-focus to a scientific focus.

The reform of the U.S. higher education system did not come from a government mandate or "incentives." It did not happen by philanthropists giving money directly to the leading universities of the time to convince them to change their ways. It happened by philanthropists building new institutions to compete with the old ones.

The same could be done for K-12 education. Matt Ladner has written a series of posts on "The Way of the Future." He, along with Terry Moe, Clay Christensen, Paul Peterson, and others, envision large numbers of hybrid virtual schools offering higher quality customized education at dramatically lower costs. Students would attend school buildings, but the bulk of their instruction would be delivered by interactive software. The school would need significantly fewer staff, who would concentrate mostly on assisting students with the technology and managing behavior.

Obviously, this kind of school would not be good for everybody. But it could appeal to large numbers of students and be offered at such a low cost that it could be affordable even to low-income families without needing public subsidy or adoption by the public school system.

Gates or someone else with billions to devote to education could build a national chain of these virtual hybrid schools to compete with existing public and private schools. It's true that Gates is already investing in the development and refinement of the virtual hybrid school model, but a complete commitment to building new rather than reforming old would give him the potential to do what Rockefeller, Stanford, and others did to higher education. Virtual hybrid schools could be the disruptive technology, as Christensen calls it, to produce real reform in education.

Another benefit of the "building new" strategy for philanthropists is that it avoids the Emperor's New Clothes problem, where philanthropists are encouraged to pursue flawed strategies to reform existing institutions because everyone is afraid to criticize the wealthy donor from whose largess they benefit. With the "build new" strategy there is ultimately a market test of the wisdom of the strategy. If the new institutions are not better, people won't choose them. If the University of Chicago had been a flawed model, it wouldn't have attracted enrollment and would have failed to apply competitive pressure to Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Similarly, if the virtual hybrid school is a bad model, then it won't attract students and compete with existing public and private schools.

Edison Schools is an example of a "build new" strategy that failed the market test. They failed to develop technologies or other efficiencies to bring down the costs of operating private schools. And their revised strategy of operating public schools under contract with public school districts was flawed by an underestimation of the political resistance they would face and their inability to control costs or quality within the public system.

But we also have successful examples of the "build new" strategy adopted by philanthropists. In addition to the string of scientific universities built in the latter half of the 19th century, we also have the example of Andrew Carnegie and public libraries. Carnegie helped promote literacy and cultural knowledge by supporting the construction of hundreds of new libraries around the country. He didn't try to reform existing book-sellers, he just built new. Another example (outside of education) can be seen in John D. Rockefeller's role in the development of a national park system. Rockefeller privately acquired large chunks of what are now the Acadia, Grand Teton, Great Smoky Mountains and Yellowstone national parks. Rockefeller didn't try to reform the operations of the existing Interior Department. Instead, he effectively privately built nature reserves and then donated them to the U.S. to become national parks.

Of course, this "build new" strategy has limited potential for smaller-scale philanthropy. But for the very wealthy, like Gates, the path to making a significant and lasting difference is to build new rather than reform old. The lasting benefits of what Rockefeller did in higher education and national parks and Carnegie did with libraries are still noticeable today. If Gates and others with billions to devote to education continue to focus on reforming the old rather than building new, I fear their efforts will soon be forgotten after the Emperor's New Clothes adulation fades when they stop having large sums to give.

from Education Next

National Survey shows increased support for vouchers, but public's views on merit pay, charters, and other policies have not changed, though teacher opposition to reforms intensifies

CAMBRIDGE, MA - The fifth annual survey conducted by Harvard's Program on Education Policy and Governance (PEPG) and Education Next on a wide range of education issues reveals that the opinions of the public have remained largely unchanged since one year ago, despite controversies in Wisconsin, Indiana and many other states. However, teacher opposition to many reforms has increased, placing them more at odds with views of the general public.

An article, "The Public Weighs In on School Reform," interpreting this year's results by William Howell, Martin West, and Paul Peterson, will appear in the Fall 2011 issue of Education Next, and is currently available at www.educationnext.org.

Support for vouchers as a means to expand school choice increased by 8 percentage points between 2010 and 2011, the largest shift of public opinion over the course of the past year. Forty-seven percent of participants who were asked if they support or oppose "a proposal to give families with children in public schools a wider choice, by allowing them to enroll their children in private schools instead, with government helping to pay the tuition" indicated their support. "Although public opinion on most issues has remained stable, public support for vouchers has grown noticeably," West observes. "Meanwhile, teacher opinion has changed in a direction opposite to that of the public on such issues as merit pay and teacher tenure."

Public opinion on charter schools showed little change, even though the topic received substantial media attention over the past year. Forty-three percent of the American public support charters, and among teachers, favorable views of charters increased from 39 percent in 2010 to 45 percent this year. Only 18 percent of the public opposes charter schools. Of those surveyed, 39 percent of the public and 18 percent of teachers took a neutral position.

Notably, 33 percent of the public thinks that teachers unions have a generally negative effect on the nation's public schools, virtually unchanged from 31 percent and 33 percent in 2009 and 2010, respectively. The share perceiving a positive union impact has hardly budged from 28 percent in 2010 to 29 percent in 2011; 38 percent are neutral on unions' impact. Teacher opinion is moving in the opposite direction: 58 percent think they have a positive impact, an increase from 51 percent the previous year. Meanwhile the percentage of teachers saying that unions have a negative impact on the nation's schools has dropped to 17 percent from 25 percent in 2010.

Again this year, the poll found that a near majority of the public, 47 percent, favors merit pay - paying teachers, in part, based on the academic progress of their students on state tests. Only 27 percent oppose the idea. "Merit pay remains anathema to teachers, however, with only 18 percent in favor, and 72 percent in opposition," Howell points out.

On teacher tenure, the public's opposition to it has done nothing more than tick upward from 47 percent in 2010 to 49 percent in 2011. The poll also shows that 55 percent of the public supports the principle that if tenure is given at all, it should be based on demonstrated success in raising student performance. Teachers, meanwhile, like tenure more than ever; 53 percent support it, up from 48 percent in 2010, and only 30 percent agree that tenure should be based on student academic progress.

The affluent - defined as college graduates who are in the top income decile in their state - are more critical of unions than is the public as a whole. Fifty-six percent say unions have a negative impact on their schools (versus 33 percent of the public as a whole). The affluent like their local schools better than most people do (54 percent grade them A or B versus 46 percent of the public as a whole) but they think less well of public schools nationally (only 15 percent give the nation's schools the highest two grades) and are more in favor of reforms such as charter schools. Teachers are much more generous in their evaluation, with 37 percent giving the nation's schools an A or B.

On questions of school spending, respondents' opinions depend on how much they know. For example, 59 percent of the public says that government funding for their district's public schools should increase. However, when they were informed about the level of per-pupil expenditure in their community, which averaged $12,300 for the survey's respondents, enthusiasm for increased spending dampened, with public support falling to 46 percent.

In 2011, support for digital learning among the general public was 47 percent, a modest decrease from 52 percent the year before. Forty-nine percent of teachers support digital learning, as do 42 percent of the well-to-do. However, Peterson noted that "when respondents are asked about their own children, high levels of support are shown, with a majority of Americans and roughly two in three teachers indicating a willingness to have one of their children take ‘some academic courses' in high school over the internet."

When it comes to school and student accountability, the authors observe, "the public's appetite for standardized tests appears undiminished." More than two in three Americans believe that the federal government should "continue to require that all students be tested in math and reading each year in grades 3-8 and once in high school," which mirrors the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) testing mandates. Whereas NCLB allows each state to develop its own tests for determining student proficiency, solid pluralities of all subgroups support the creation of a single national test in both reading and math.

About the Public Opinion Survey
The Education Next-PEPG survey was conducted by the polling firm Knowledge Networks (KN) between April 15 and May 4, 2011. The survey interviewed a nationally representative sample of some 2,600 American citizens. In addition to the views of the public as a whole, special attention was given to two potentially influential types of participants in school politics: teachers (surveyed as a separate representative group for the third year in a row) and the affluent (considered separately for the first time). Detailed information about the survey protocols is available online at www.knowledgenetworks.com/quality/.

For more information, please visit: www.educationnext.org

from Education Next by Jeb Bush

From managing our nation's finances to designing policies that create more jobs for America's workers and graduates, federal leaders are consumed by capital related decisions.

But education must be a top priority. It nurtures our most precious natural resource - the human capital of the skills and talents of our young people.

Improving the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is a good start. This must, however, put students first, support effective teachers and continue to hold everyone accountable for results.

Thanks, in part, to reforms passed a decade ago; student achievement across the nation has improved. On the Nation's Report Card's main tests, 4th and 8th grade reading and math scored gains in 49 of 50 states. But much work still must be done to equip students for a dynamic, global workforce.

Yet ESEA reauthorization has all but stalled, creating enormous uncertainty for our schools, teachers and students.

For example, the act requires states to reach 100 percent proficiency on state academic tests by 2014. But even with exemptions, the states showing the most rapid improvement will not meet this mark.

Some state leaders have responded to Washington's inaction by announcing they will ignore the law's provisions. Others have simply lowered exam passing thresholds to technically - but shamefully - comply. Reductions of this sort are tragic, since many state standards are already too low.

Without reauthorization, Education Secretary Arne Duncan should use existing waiver authority to provide regulatory relief, so leading states can pass reforms that deliver results for students. States like Indiana, Florida and others provide a clear template.

Not all states should be given this flexibility. The bar should be set high, with greater flexibility rewarded only to states that implement bold reforms that improve the quality of education and student achievement.

This could free states moving from "pass/fail" to an A-F school grading system, based on student proficiency and academic growth. A-F systems are more intuitive to parents and the public. They also help leaders to clearly differentiate rewards and interventions for schools.

Florida, for example, pioneered the practice of awarding schools letter grades based on a balanced formula of student proficiency and learning gains - with an emphasis on the advances made by the lowest performing students.

Policymakers in Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Utah have adopted similar plans, while others are now looking at it.

Duncan should also consider rewarding states with the highest levels of transparency with greater flexibility.

Research now proves what parents and students knew: the quality of the teacher is the single most important factor in student achievement. The education bill requires "high qualified teachers" - but measured only by teacher credentials.

Many states and school districts are now adopting more advanced data systems, linking student performance to teachers. For the first time, we can measure teacher effectiveness using transparent objectives and standards.

Washington should embrace this reform - giving states that measure teacher quality based on student learning, flexibility from regulations.

Washington can also include waivers and incentives in the education bill so it can encourage states to expand educational choice and digital learning. Today's students deserve new, innovative approaches to education.

States can use digital learning to offer every student an education environment tailored to their learning pace and style. Students trapped in a failing school should be offered the lifeline to success that educational choice provides.

Some in Washington argue that these waivers permit the Executive Branch to legislate a congressional bill. The way to address this concern is to ensure that regulatory relief is only granted in exchange for advancing real reform. The states receiving this relief can help inform the education reauthorization process when it is taken up by Congress.

Washington's inaction should not prevent governors, state chiefs and district leaders from implementing the next generation of reforms for our students. If DC won't act, it should at least support those that are.

This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. Our nation's destiny is at stake. As policy and funding discussions take place, leaders in both parties must work together to reward what matters most: student achievement.

This article originally appeared onPolitico.

from Education Week District Dossier by Christina Samuels

As a part of my recent article on the response to the cheating scandal in Atlanta, I tried to include a mention of the latest cheating investigations going on around the country.

But the news moves faster than newspaper deadlines, and now there are two additional investigations underway that I did not mention, in New Jersey and in a school in Waterbury, Conn.

In Waterbury, 17 teachers and administrators atHopeville Elementary School were placed on leave while the state looks into cheating on the Connecticut Mastery Test administered last spring.

In an article that ran in the Connecticut Post, the state commissioner of education said that school employees who alter tests should not only lose their jobs, they should face having to pay for the cheating investigation:

Faced with having to shell out $20,000 or more to pay for an investigation into allegations of cheating at an elementary school in Waterbury, [Commissioner George] Coleman told the state Board of Education state statutes need to be stronger to level penalties to recoup the costs incurred as a result of testing improprieties.

Costs involve not only an investigation, but retesting students and hiring substitutes.

"There are many levels of costs ... as a token of how incensed I am, I am hoping that the board can adopt or support the department to develop legislation that enhances the liability of professionals who engage in this kind of work," Coleman said.

In New Jersey, the state is reviewing test scores in 34 schools that had a high rate of wrong-to-right erasures on answer sheets.The Press of Atlantic City's article noted that no one is saying cheating occurred. But the situation in Atlanta has made the state more cautious:

"Erasures alone are fine," DOE spokesman Justin Barra said. "We want students to take time to review their answers. But we are collecting more information."

Barra said the DOE also investigates tips, and in 2010-11 received 40 complaints alleging improper testing procedures. In 2010, eight teachers were found to have improperly helped students on state tests.

And, for a look into the mind of a teacher who admitted helping her students change answers on state standardized tests, be sure to check out a recent post in The Notebook, a website devoted to covering Philadelphia schools news.

The anonymous teacher says that the intense pressure to raise scores contributed to her cheating. But she also says that she was motivated by loyalty to her students: "I wanted them to succeed, because I believe their continued failure on these terrible tests crushes their spirit," she told The Notebook.

from Education news - Boston Globe by John O'Connor, AP Political Writer

The state's 44 regional superintendents sued Friday in an effort to get their salaries reinstated after Gov. Pat Quinn used his veto power to cut the money out of the Illinois budget.

from Education: DC Area Education News by Daniel de Vise

The University of Northern Virginia had already made news over an immigration raid last month of its Annandale office-mall headquarters.

Then, the story got stranger. Someone, presumably conducting a journalistic background sweep on university Chancellor David Lee, unearthed pictures and ads posted by the academician on an S&M Web site.

The revelation prompted little serious news coverage but fired up a whole ‘nother sector of the news media, drawing headlines such as this one, from Britain’s Daily Mail: "University chancellor, 64, exposed as sadomasochistic, suburban sex-dungeon master."

Read full article >>

from Education Week American Education

Pat Quinn is being accused by labor of trying to renege on salary and benefit guarantees for Illinois' union workers.

from Education news - Boston Globe by Associated Press

When the nearly 300 students of the Irene-Wakonda School District returned to school this week, they found a lot of old friends, teachers, and familiar routines awaiting them. But one thing was missing: Friday classes.

from Education Action Group Foundation by Brett Healy

Parents in Wisconsin are voting with their feet. Or at least their kids’ feet.

More than 260,000 Wisconsin K-12 students exercise some form of educational choice, according to a new study by the John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy.



Choice in education is not the exception, it is the norm in Wisconsin,. Our MacIver Educational Choice Census shows that parents across Wisconsin embrace alternatives to the public school that bureaucrats dictate upon them based solely on where they live.

The MacIver Educational Choice Census reveals that 261,301 Wisconsin school children are educated in a place other than their traditional, geographically-assigned public school. This includes private schools, choice schools, virtual schools and other public charter schools, those who are homeschooled and those who participate in the state’s cumbersome and narrow open enrollment window. That figure is up 17.7 percent from the 222,086 children from the last MacIver census.

Statewide, more than 25 percent of students exercised choice, and in Milwaukee, almost four out of every five students exercised some form of choice over where they’ll attend school. That’s right. Nearly eighty percent.

Yet politicians still fret over giving parents more options. They embrace the 19th Century delivery model that would force students who wish to be publicly educated into attending the building assigned by the bureaucracy. The Choice Census shows that the people get it. Now if only the establishment would follow suit.

Read more>>

from Education Action Group Foundation by Don Loos

Dr. Moe: "If you stand up for kids, you have to oppose this [collective bargaining] Schools get organized by the adults on the basis of interests and concerns that have nothing to do with kids. So, why would you expect that system to work?"

As students head back to school, it is a good time to reflect on why education is failing and continues to fail. Terry Moe, Chairman of the Political Science Department at Stanford, provides a dispassionate and extensively researched book, Special Interest: Teachers Unions and America’s Public Schools, which should become a useful and effective tool for any passionate education reformers. Dr. Moe states and backs it up with 500 pages of text that teacher unions are the biggest impediment to permanent and effective education reform.

Dr. Moe’s research unquestionably shows that America’s children are risk because of their very own teachers’ allegiance to the NEA and AFT unions rather than education. And, until Big Labor’s influence over education is diminished, reform remains elusive.

In his presentation at the Concerned Educators Against Forced Unionism’s (CEAFU) 36^th Annual Conference, Dr. Moe stated that his research concludes that it is impossible for any effective education reform to occur with teacher unions as partners in reform. He said that unions have been and will inherently remain the well-financed opposition to education reform. Professor Moe added that in our political system it is easier to block reform than to bring about reform, giving teachers unions an additional edge in preventing changes.

Professor Moe said that collective bargaining, the source of teacher union power, and teachers’ job interests, which collective bargaining enshrines, are inconsistent with reform. As long as teacher monopoly bargaining exists in public schools, effective educational reform is doomed to fail regardless of how many billions are poured into reform initiatives.

Therefore, the Gates Foundation and other education reformers would better use their public school educational reform grants and efforts to eliminate teacher union monopoly bargaining. Then, having eliminated the biggest roadblocks to education reform (i.e. NEA & AFT), real educational reformers could actually begin to create permanent and effective change for the children.

Professor Moe’s certain that until collective bargaining is eliminated, effective and permanent education improvements will remain untenable. And, he has the research to back up his claims.

Looks like Scott Walker may be moving Wisconsin in the right direction for education reform, and the recall elections prove Dr. Moe’s points as well.

from Philadelphia Public School Notebook by Dale Mezzacappa

The School Reform Commission and Superintendent Arlene Ackerman had "mutually" agreed in principle almost two months ago that she would leave the District, according to Mayor Michael Nutter.

Nutter, at a Monday press conference commenting on the end of her tenure in Philadelphia, said he worked to complete Ackerman’s departure before the start of the school year while minimizing the cost to the taxpayers.

He made his deadline with just two weeks to spare – to the tune of $905,000, with $405,000 of that coming from anonymous, private donors.

read more

from Education News - The New York Times by SHARON OTTERMAN

The New York schools chancellor, Dennis M. Walcott, said he did not believe the increase meant that more misconduct was taking place.