Category Archives: Research

I’m sad to see a successful School Choice Week winding down. There are almost too many different options of what to blog about. Rather than exercise a choice and just do one of the items, I’ve decided instead to blitz you with a bunch of neat items to bring to your attention:

Keep those education policy grades a-rollin’ in! Not even two weeks since I shared with you that the Center for Education Reform placed Colorado 10th nationally for the strength of its charter school law, here comes another rating. The ever-growing National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS) has released its fourth annual ranking of state charter laws. So what’s different? (Commence Wonk Speak) NAPCS incorporates more factors into its rating system, including an added focus on issues of ensuring quality control. In addition to measuring access to multiple authorizers, levels of school-based autonomy, and equitable funding, NAPCS also gives credence to transparent approval processes, performance-based contracting, and clear guidance regarding student enrollment and recruitment procedures. (End Wonk Speak) The formula helps Colorado to rank 4th overall, earning 70 percent of the possible points. Remarkably, while the competition is growing from other states improving their policies, Colorado still managed to pick up significant points and gain three spots since last year:

It sure seems like Colorado education policies are getting graded quite a bit these days. Last week we earned a B from the Center for Education Reform for the quality of our charter school law, which placed us in the top 10 among states. Two weeks ago Students First looked at a whole range of policies to rank us 9th nationally but give us only a C. Another group not grading on the curve is the National Council on Teacher Quality — better known as NCTQ. The picture isn’t pretty at all. The release of the 2012 edition of the State Teacher Policy Yearbook focused in on a weak area for Colorado: teacher preparation. Last year, rating states on a whole gamut of instructional policies — including the identification and retention of effective teachers — Colorado pulled down a modest C. Our state’s worst of the five areas was in how well we provide for preparing teachers to do the job: D-minus. So I guess we should be mildly upbeat that a year later Colorado now has a D in teacher preparation policies? Not exactly. Some just seem to blame the group giving out the grades:

Thanks to Ed News Colorado, my attention today was brought to an interesting Education Week story by Stephen Sawchuk that says colleges of education are graduating too many elementary school teachers: Finally, the tendency toward oversubscription in the elementary fields is also a function of candidates’ interest, said Amee Adkins, an associate dean of the college of education at Illinois State University, in Normal, and the president of the Illinois Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. “It’s content material they were less intimated [sic] by,” she said, ticking off a list of reasons. “Kids are cuter when they’re little. And it’s probably when [the candidates] remember having the most fun in school.” The Education Intelligence Agency’s Mike Antonucci has been on the case of “teacher shortage alarmists” for quite awhile now, a much needed service. But I don’t think that until now there has ever been evidence so compelling to shoot down the alarmists’ case.

In the education reform world, you’ve got to be comfortable with the idea of assigning states grades and putting them on a scorecard. Why, it was just last week I highlighted Colorado’s top 10 finish — aided by the curve — on Student First’s inaugural State Policy Report Cards. Well, once again Colorado has landed in the top 10 (just barely), though this time it’s a B we earned rather than a C. And it’s a familiar place to be. What am I talking about? The Center for Education Reform’s 2013 Charter Law Ranking Chart. As I noted last year when dissecting the rankings:

One of the education proposals giving me the 5-year-old equivalent of heartburn as Colorado’s legislative session gets rolling is the attempt to add regulations to the state’s full-time online schools. For those who have been following the scene for any length of time, that probably sounds like a broken record (“like a damaged MP3 file” is probably more up to date, but doesn’t have the same ring to it). Over the past couple years there’s been a lot of controversy in Colorado about cyberschools. No time to rehash here all charges, counter-charges, questions, and concerns. It’s also escalated at the national level with a report from the National Education Policy Center (NEPC). And this week brings a great response from the Brookings Institution’s Matthew Chingos at Education Next. A quick taste:

If a person asked why he is doing something gives the response, “Because everyone else is doing it,” that usually won’t pass muster. If that person happens to be 5 years old, even if an accomplished blogging prodigy, you’d cut them a little slack… right? Today, it seems like everyone out there has something to say about the Gates Foundation’s newly released findings from the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Project. Ed News Colorado’s Julie Poppen highlights a study conclusion that meshes very well with Colorado’s SB 191 teacher evaluation reform: “Our data suggest that assigning 50 percent or 33 percent of the weight to state test results maintains considerable predictive power, increases reliability and potentially avoids the unintended negative consequences from assigning too-heavy weights to a single measure,” the much-awaited MET study found. The implementation of SB 191 by school districts looms large across Colorado’s education policy landscape. Local boards are empowered to stop the “Dance of the Lemons” with ineffective teachers, and to put in place compensation systems that truly reward performance. By and large, these represent positive developments. But does the new Gates study really validate the law’s formula that 50 percent of teacher evaluations should be […]

A Friday quickie for readers to chew on. Back in late November, the U.S. Department of Education released the first-ever data where we could truly compare the rates at which students in different states are graduating high school on time. Unfortunately, Colorado’s 74 percent graduation rate put us in the bottom third. But now that we can finally look at all states based on a common measure of how well students are completing their secondary education (more than 43 years after we put a man on the moon), someone has to ask: Just how accurate is the comparison? In an insightful new EdFly blog post, Florida’s Mike Thomas reminds us that different graduation standards can seriously cloud the picture. After highlighting some different headlines that take to task certain states’ graduation output, he notes:

I love lists, I love education, and I love to tell people about things. So it should be no surprise that my attention was caught by yesterday’s news release from Stanford: “Hoover Institution Education Experts Identify News Media Hits and Misses in 2012 Education Coverage.” The Koret Task Force on Education named five stories that were well-covered and five that were neglected. First, the hits: Charter schools Teachers’ unions Special education Pre-Kindergarten education No Child Left Behind Next, the misses:

When confronted with the question of how well our schools are doing, too often we lack the full context needed to compare and understand what knowledge and skills students are acquiring to be strong citizens, competent workers, and trailblazing entrepreneurs for the next generation. Last year I told you about the Global Report Card, which found an effective way to compare the performance of school districts across America with national and international benchmarks. This week the George W. Bush Institute launched GRC version 2.0 with fresh data from 2009. Taking a look at the data, Atlantic senior editor Jennie Rothenberg Gritz asks “How Does Your Child’s School Rank Against the Rest of the World?” She examines a couple districts as an example to frame the question: