Category Archives: Research

From Michigan comes today’s reminder that education “reform” does not always mean real reform. History teacher Ryan McCarl writes for the Education Report that a new bill in his state designed to promote alternative teacher certification, well, really does very little or anything of the kind. In fact, he calls it “meaningless”: The text of House Bill 5596 exhibits a continuing addiction to strict state regulation of the teacher labor market and a fundamental lack of trust in the capacity of local school officials to use their professional judgment to evaluate prospective teachers on a case-by-case basis, just as hiring professionals do in most fields in the private sector. Michigan policymakers continue to presume that traditional certification provides some sort of quality guarantee that alternative certification does not. But this position is not supported by either evidence or logic.

Last Tuesday I told you about the need to focus on replicating great teaching rather than shrinking class sizes. The post basically did the following: Noted that, according to research by Mike Antonucci, Colorado has been an exception by not hiring faster than student enrollment growth Point readers to an Education Next podcast highlighting the research on effective teaching techniques by Doug Lemov and Steven Farr Connected Lemov’s and Farr’s ideas to Colorado’s statutory push to enhance educator effectiveness So how surprised was I to read this new Colorado Daily piece by my Education Policy Center friend Ben DeGrow that well, basically makes the same points?

Writing over at Education Next, experts Emily Cohen and Kate Walsh explain how reformers should be focused on changing the levers of state policy to improve the quality of teaching, rather than grousing about what locally-negotiated collective bargaining contracts won’t allow them to do. In their piece “Invisible Ink in Teacher Contracts”, Cohen and Walsh pour the spotlight on our backyard: No legislative success, however, trumps that achieved in Colorado in May 2010. The perfect storm—a charismatic, Democratic legislator who is a Teach For America alumnus, the lure of Race to the Top funds, and a whole array of advocacy groups that included the Colorado chapters of Democrats for Education Reform and Stand For Children—pulled off teacher legislation that was bitterly opposed by the state union and which no one dreamed possible a year ago. The success of SB 191 is becoming conventional wisdom nationwide, and it’s hard to disagree about its national significance — even if the implementation of the bill is slow and its actual effects promise to be somewhat modest. Maybe the best news s that Colorado achieved this remarkable legislative success despite the fact our state tends more than most toward the local control end of […]

You’ve got to hand it to the teachers unions. They have so many people conditioned to call for more teachers and smaller class sizes as the leading remedy for what ails public schools. The tide slowly is turning to a greater realization of what the abundance of research shows us: namely, that the quality of the individual teacher is far more important than small differences in class sizes. But what can policy makers do about it? Are great teachers just born that way, and we need to do more to import their natural gifts into the education system? Or are there practical skills and mechanics that teachers can learn from their peers who have achieved remarkable success in the classroom? With plenty of teaching experience between them, authors Doug Lemov (Teach Like a Champion) and Steven Farr (Teaching as Leadership) make a strong case for the latter. The 12 minutes it takes to listen to the two authors’ new Education Next podcast interview with Michael Petrilli is a worthwhile investment of time for anyone truly concerned about how to make our schools better.

It’s almost too obvious to say, but worth repeating to those who don’t want to listen: Not all public charter schools are good. But nearly all are offering families a viable education alternative, and many are outperforming their traditional counterparts — some by a significant amount. Like KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program). A new study conducted for KIPP by Mathematica shows exactly that. KIPP charter schools are making a positive impact on the primarily poor and minority student populations they serve. The examination of academic progress at 22 KIPP middle schools yielded some glowing results, including: Nearly all 22 schools have significant positive effects on student math performance over three years, mostly in the second and third year Most schools have significant positive effects on student reading performance over the second and third years, not as many in the first year “Estimated impacts are frequently large enough to substantially reduce race- and income-based achievement gaps within three years of entering KIPP.” Most KIPP schools have more students held back a grade (largely because they don’t practice social promotion) but have no higher levels of student attrition than their public school counterparts Perhaps most interesting of all is the way this […]

All things being equal, most parents and teachers want smaller class sizes for their kids in school. Isn’t that a great idea? Parents like to see their children get more individualized attention in the classroom, and teachers prefer a more controlled environment and a smaller workload. And who can blame them? To some extent, this reasoning makes sense. A class of 25 or 30 little Eddies is more manageable than a class filled with 50 or 60 of me (I can only imagine what kind of nightmares my mom would have reading that!). But given the fact of limited resources and the need to make policy decisions that lead to the best results for the most students, how wise is it to focus education spending on class size reduction?

A little earlier this week the U.S. Department of Education released the research results from the final evaluation of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP). What did it say? Basically, an admission that the very small program hasn’t had any tremendous impacts — oh yeah, except for this one: The Program significantly improved students’ chances of graduating from high school, according to parent reports. Overall, 82 percent of students offered scholarships received a high school diploma, compared to 70 percent of those who applied but were not offered scholarships. This graduation rate improvement also held for the subgroup of OSP students who came from “schools in need of improvement.” Writing on Jay Greene’s blog, Greg Forster deconstructs the control group (since the graduation rate for D.C. Public Schools is actually 49 percent), and concludes the grad-rate benefit from the voucher program is “somewhere between 12 percentage points and 33 percentage points.”

Budget times are tougher than usual for school district coffers all over. I get that. So what’s the solution? For some interest groups entrenched in the status quo (read: teachers unions), laying off teachers with less seniority is preferred to all teachers giving up their lavish health care plan for a more reasonable one. At least that’s the case in Milwaukee. A long story in this week’s Journal-Sentinel (H/T Eduwonk) explains: “The reality is we cannot sustain the current system without major structural change,” [Milwaukee School Board President Michael] Bonds said. “We could literally save hundreds of jobs with the stroke of a pen if teachers switched to the lower-cost health-care plan.” The teachers union has countered that the board is bargaining in public by offering jobs in exchange for health-care concessions.

Update, 6/16: Teacher Beat blogger Stephen Sawchuk notes that both Colorado’s own Harrison School District and now the Pittsburgh School District have fashioned pay plans that make master’s bumps “a thing of the past.” It’s summertime. The Internet isn’t exactly brimming with exciting new developments in the world of education to write about. So instead I point you to a new blog post from Dr. Eric Hanushek at Education Next about the irrational policy of awarding teachers automatic pay increases for earning masters degrees: What does this bonus do? It induces many teachers to want to have a master’s degree. (Over half of all teachers have an advanced degree now.) Getting a master’s degree is frequently something done concurrently with a full time teaching job, so the last thing these teachers want is a challenging academic program that requires real work. As a result, schools of education are willing to sell master’s degrees that require minimal effort. Master’s degrees become a very profitable product. A profitable product that, as research has shown time and again, does absolutely nothing to benefit the learning of students. And as the Center on Reinventing Public Education showed in 2009, 2 percent of all K-12 […]

Harvard University professor Dr. Paul Peterson, along with colleague Carlos Xabel Lastra-Anadón, has unveiled some new research that underscores one of the top untold Colorado education stories of recent years. The issue is how high are states setting the bar to measure student learning in the basic subjects of reading and math–also known as “performance standards.” The findings? Since 2007 states have raised the bar a bit on reading performance standards but have made no improvement with math. Essentially every state “deems more students ‘proficient’ on its own assessments than NAEP [the National Assessment of Educational Progress] does.” The researchers measured the strength of a state’s performance standards by how well the state’s proficiency ratings in various subject tests match up with the “gold standard” NAEP test.