Friday, August 24, 2007
America's Worst Colleges
According to RADAR Online, via TNR. In an alternate universe where I can't besmirch the good name of Education Sector, I get to freelance the 2008 version of this....
The Gray Area Between Church and State
Today’s New York Times has a thought-provoking article about a Hebrew charter school in Florida
As charter schooling has grown, so too have the number of schools that teeter on the border between church and state or that could be considered exclusionary because of an intense focus on one culture or language. It’s an issue that is likely to gain prominence as the growth of choice in schooling allows parents and students to choose more customized schools—to some, this allows students to find a school that meets their academic and social needs, to others it means the re-segregation of public schooling. As usual, the answer is probably a little bit of both.
Compete or Litigate?
Earlier this week I received a press release from the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) annoucing, with enthusiasm, that "a coalition of parents, students, community groups, and legal advocates sued the United States Department of Education and Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings for violating the teacher quality provisions of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act."
The essence of the suit is this: NCLB requires all teachers to be "highly qualified," the components of which include full certification by the state in which the teacher happens to live. In most states, a prerequesite for full certification is completion of an approved teacher training program--i.e. the programs represented by AACTE. But some states also have "alternative certification" programs that allow teachers to skip the teacher prep program, or start teaching first and complete the program while they're on the job. Alt-cert is what allows programs like Teach for America, which puts freshly-minted graduates of top colleges directly into the classroom (after an intensive summer training program run by TFA itself, not an AACTE institution), to exist. AACTE is saying that under the NCLB "highly qualified" definition, alt-cert programs are illegal.
Leaving the legal issues aside (and as the Gadfly pointed out this week, NCLB is ambiguous and perhaps even contradictory on this point), here's what this boils down to:
We have a group of colleges and universities, represented by AACTE, who are selling a service.
We have a group of people who want to be teachers who don't want to buy the service.
We have a group of school districts who want to hire those teachers, knowing full well that they haven't bought the service.
We have a lot of research, like this, saying that the service, and the certification process to which it's tied, seems to have very little impact on the likelihood of a teacher succeding in the classroom.
Faced with this situation, AACTE members have two options: 1) Improve the quality of their service and convince people it's worth buying. 2) Sue the federal government to compel people to spend a lot of time and money on something they don't want and which research says they don't need.
That they chose (2) says a lot.
The essence of the suit is this: NCLB requires all teachers to be "highly qualified," the components of which include full certification by the state in which the teacher happens to live. In most states, a prerequesite for full certification is completion of an approved teacher training program--i.e. the programs represented by AACTE. But some states also have "alternative certification" programs that allow teachers to skip the teacher prep program, or start teaching first and complete the program while they're on the job. Alt-cert is what allows programs like Teach for America, which puts freshly-minted graduates of top colleges directly into the classroom (after an intensive summer training program run by TFA itself, not an AACTE institution), to exist. AACTE is saying that under the NCLB "highly qualified" definition, alt-cert programs are illegal.
Leaving the legal issues aside (and as the Gadfly pointed out this week, NCLB is ambiguous and perhaps even contradictory on this point), here's what this boils down to:
We have a group of colleges and universities, represented by AACTE, who are selling a service.
We have a group of people who want to be teachers who don't want to buy the service.
We have a group of school districts who want to hire those teachers, knowing full well that they haven't bought the service.
We have a lot of research, like this, saying that the service, and the certification process to which it's tied, seems to have very little impact on the likelihood of a teacher succeding in the classroom.
Faced with this situation, AACTE members have two options: 1) Improve the quality of their service and convince people it's worth buying. 2) Sue the federal government to compel people to spend a lot of time and money on something they don't want and which research says they don't need.
That they chose (2) says a lot.
Lies My Teachers Told Me
Over at the Huffington Post, Marc Lampkin from ED in 08 notes that the NEA's characterization of the merit pay conversation at the recent Democratic presidential debate in Iowa was...less than accurate. The NEA press release said:
But Lampkin points out that:
In the long run, I think this militant anti-merit pay stance is going to be very, very bad for the NEA.
The optics are terrible, first of all. While it's true that there are few jobs where pay is tied to performance in a purely meritocratic way, it's equally true that fewer and fewer people have jobs likes those in teaching where (A) your employer is prohibited from even taking merit into consideration when setting pay, and (B) your above-inflation pay increases occur automatically based on longetivity. Highlighting this difference isolates teachers from everyone else. There's a reason this is the issue where Democrats are increasingly likely to challenge union doctrine.
In the long run, moreover, opposition to merit pay is bad for individual teachers. The unionization of teachers that occurred in the 1960s was undeniably beneficial for teacher pay, raising compensation up to at least a decent standard of living. But that flattened out in the 1970s, and since then the average teacher salary has been stagnant. While other professions shared in the huge increase in national wealth that's occured since then, teachers were left out.
But at the same time, the overall amount of money spent on teacher pay has increased enormously, because while we haven't been paying teachers more, we've been paying a lot more teachers--the ratio of students to teachers is lower than it's ever been. This makes perfect sense--if you treat something like a commodity, and people want more of it, they're going to buy quantity, not quality. The only way the public is going to spend more money than they are now on an individual teacher is if they feel like they're getting something back in return--merit. And of course there are literally tens of thousands of unusually meritorious teachers out there right now who can't be paid what they're worth because the contracts under which they work don't allow it.
The NEA's problem is that it's so big and so rich that it can get away with the kind of thing Lampkin describes. It can bully Democrats trying to win primaries and have an impact, at least for a while. But there's a difference between a group politicians have to listen and a group politicians want to listen to, and the distinction tends play out in a lot of subtle but important ways down the road. To be clear, I don't think teachers shouldn't have a powerful national union--they should. But sometimes power gives you the ability to avoid hard choices, and becomes its own worst enemy in the end.
"Democrats running for president reject any mandatory pay-for-performance schemes as part of the reauthorization of the federal No Child Left Behind Act. The candidates also reject any plan to tie teacher pay to student test scores. The candidates stated their opposition to merit pay during a nationally
televised debate in Des Moines, Iowa."
But Lampkin points out that:
...one candidate who stated his support for performance pay said teachers "can't be judged simply on standardized tests that don't take into account whether children are prepared before they get to school or not [...]." To me, the word "simply" means he's against using test scores as the only way to evaluate teacher performance. And the words "don't take into account whether children are prepared" mean he's open to performance pay based on "value-added" gains in student test scores -- a method that takes into account how much students know when they enter a teacher's classroom.That candidate was very careful on Sunday to say he is only for performance pay plans that get buy-in from teachers. But that is happening in many places across the country. Denver's teacher union led the effort to win support for a new performance-based compensation system for teachers there -- one that includes gains in student test scores as one measure. And just last week the New York Times published a story with the headline, "Teachers Say Yes to Pay Tied to Scores." Just because the national NEA opposes something doesn't mean that teachers in general -- or even their local affiliates -- do too.
In the long run, I think this militant anti-merit pay stance is going to be very, very bad for the NEA.
The optics are terrible, first of all. While it's true that there are few jobs where pay is tied to performance in a purely meritocratic way, it's equally true that fewer and fewer people have jobs likes those in teaching where (A) your employer is prohibited from even taking merit into consideration when setting pay, and (B) your above-inflation pay increases occur automatically based on longetivity. Highlighting this difference isolates teachers from everyone else. There's a reason this is the issue where Democrats are increasingly likely to challenge union doctrine.
In the long run, moreover, opposition to merit pay is bad for individual teachers. The unionization of teachers that occurred in the 1960s was undeniably beneficial for teacher pay, raising compensation up to at least a decent standard of living. But that flattened out in the 1970s, and since then the average teacher salary has been stagnant. While other professions shared in the huge increase in national wealth that's occured since then, teachers were left out.
But at the same time, the overall amount of money spent on teacher pay has increased enormously, because while we haven't been paying teachers more, we've been paying a lot more teachers--the ratio of students to teachers is lower than it's ever been. This makes perfect sense--if you treat something like a commodity, and people want more of it, they're going to buy quantity, not quality. The only way the public is going to spend more money than they are now on an individual teacher is if they feel like they're getting something back in return--merit. And of course there are literally tens of thousands of unusually meritorious teachers out there right now who can't be paid what they're worth because the contracts under which they work don't allow it.
The NEA's problem is that it's so big and so rich that it can get away with the kind of thing Lampkin describes. It can bully Democrats trying to win primaries and have an impact, at least for a while. But there's a difference between a group politicians have to listen and a group politicians want to listen to, and the distinction tends play out in a lot of subtle but important ways down the road. To be clear, I don't think teachers shouldn't have a powerful national union--they should. But sometimes power gives you the ability to avoid hard choices, and becomes its own worst enemy in the end.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
College Rankings Fiesta
I'm back from Costa Rica after 10 blissfully email / Internet / news-of-the-outside-world-free days, and while I'd still much rather be there than here, it's nice to be here.Right to business: the annual U.S. News & World Report college rankings were released in my absence. The news cycle around this is funny, because there's never really any news -- as long as the way the rankings are calculated stays the same, the top schools never, ever change. Yet again, Princeton and Harvard are #1 and #2 -- yawn.
That forces the news outlets to search for different stories, and the Times went with the straightforward "dodgy practices designed to juice the rankings" angle. But in focusing on things colleges do to drive down acceptance rates (mostly by increasing applicants), the Times is looking in the wrong place. Acceptance rates make up only 1.5% of a college's rankings (see our paper on the subject here), so even you used every trick in the book to knock your rate down by five or 10 points, it wouldn't make much difference.
The biggest factor driving rankings that a college can realistically change (reputations being difficult to budge) is money. 30 percent of each college's rankings is based on either direct measures like spending per student or measures of things that cost money to buy, like higher faculty salaries and smaller class sizes. And that's one of the big reasons the rankings never change; our increasingly-winner-takes-all-society is reflected in the higher education sector, where a few elite colleges accumulate Scrooge McDuck-like mountains of cash in their endowments and pick among the brightest students, while everyone else scrambles for the leftovers. They more they have, the more they get, and so on.
InsiderHigherEd notes that U.S. News made a small change in the methodology, incorporating the percent of students on Pell grants for the first time into the "expected graduation" rate component, which rates colleges based on the difference between their actual and statistically predicted graduation rate. It's a nice gesture, but that's all it is. The expected grad rate measure is only 5% of the rankings, and based on some analyses I've done of graduation rates, the Pell percentage is probably only about 10% of that -- in other words, one half of one percent of the total. This won't make anyone redouble their efforts recruit more low-income students. They'd be better off recruiting rich students who pay full tuition and whose parents will donate to the endowment.
The Washington Monthly, by contrast, makes the Pell percentage a much more prominent part of their newly-released annual college rankings. That's the difference between rankings focused on what colleges do for society at large and the U.S. News rankings that are, in the end, mostly about what colleges do for themselves.
College Knowledge
Here's a funny and frightening list of what today's college students know (and don't know). It's also startling to learn that most first-year college students this year were born in 1989. Which explains why they think that leg warmers and spandex are hot new trends in fashion. Bi-level hair-dos coming to a campus near you- see Ice Cube's poodle cut, The Human League hair, and the gender neutral Ziggy Cut.
Pre-K in Virginia and Beyond
Washington Post reports on Virginia's pre-k debate: targeted or universal, which is better? Virginia's only the latest of a string of states trying and testing different pre-K models. Education Sector's solution here.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
A Quality Teacher In Every Classroom
A California-based coalition of parents and community members is suing the USDOE for violating teacher quality provisions. Press release from Public Advocates, which is representing the coalition, provides details about the lawsuit, which is supported by AACTE (pdf statement).
Meanwhile, UFT leader Randi Weingarten guest-blogs at length on Eduwonk about the teacher role in data-driven accountability.
Meanwhile, UFT leader Randi Weingarten guest-blogs at length on Eduwonk about the teacher role in data-driven accountability.
Business Schools
British journalist Peter Curran hosts a series of half-hour videos on American public schools. In this one, "Education USA- Profiting from School", he examines the corporate role in public education, visiting an Edison school in Las Vegas, talking with Lowell Milken in Los Angeles, and visiting D.C. to meet with ES's own Tom Toch.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Baby Achievement
Newsweek reports on a Journal of Pediatrics study that says babies shouldn't watch too much TV. Apparently, television doesn't improve babies' vocabulary but talking to them does. Was anyone under the impression that TV (even those Baby Einstein videos that are marketed as baby brain food to gullible and guilt-ridden new parents) actually helps babies' vocabulary? According to the study, TV Baby may gain eight to ten fewer words than No TV Baby. Uh-oh. If we had a "baby achievement" measure I guess that would be it. But I don't really think we need one.
US News' College Rankings
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)