Brace(y) Yourself

Gerry Bracey takes to the pages of the Huffington Post to declare that the authors of NCLB are "like the Nazis at Nuremberg" and wonders when they, too will be called to account. Then--perhaps worrying that someone out there remained unoffended--he likens high-stakes testing to slavery, in the historical sense. (Hat tip: This Week in Eduction.)

It would be a mistake to conclude that says anything about the NCLB debate itself. There are people of good faith on both sides of the argument; Bracey just isn't one of them. 

It's also striking how banal this ten millionth proof of Godwin's Law really is. I've seen Bracey speak in public on a number of occasions. In his more lucid moments, he's actually a pretty intelligent guy.  Surely he's got more up his sleeve than cliched reductio ad Hitlerum argumentation? This stuff barely shocks anymore, Gerry! And isn't that the point?

The more interesting question is whether he can keep it up. Bracey is not an obscure figure in education. He's published numerous op-eds in the Washington Post and elsewhere on the subject and has written extensively in Phi Delta Kappan and other well-respected publications. He's taught at George Mason and has been a Fellow at the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University. He gets paid to speak before many mainstream education groups. 

One wonders: is there anything someone can say that's so patently offensive and obviously deranged that it precludes further participation in respectable conversation? I guess we'll find out. 

The Minority College Graduation Rate Gap

Over the last five years or so, there's a been a huge push among private foundations and public policymakers to focus on the problem of high school graduation. Only half of minority students graduate on time, we are told, a national disgrace. And it's true. Yet far less attention is paid to the fact that there are literally hundreds of colleges and universities in this country where a 50 percent minority graduation rate would be a major improvement. This is the subject of a new report from Education Sector, released this morning.

Consider this table:

It shows the distribution of six-year graduation rates for black students at over 1,000 colleges and universities. Only 20 of those institutions, representing 1.1% of black students who started college as first-time, full-time, degree-seeking freshmen in 2000, graduated 90 percent of those students within six years. 2.3% of the students attended an instiutions with a black graduation rate between 80% and 90%, etc.

As you can see, the big numbers are in the 30% to 39% range, and some go even lower. Overall, black students starting college at the beginning of the millennium were two-and-a-half times more likely to enroll at a school with a 70 percent chance of not graduating within six years than at a school with a 70 percent chance of earning a degree. Overall, black graduation rates are nearly 20 percentage points lower than rates for white students.

This is partly because black students are disproportionately enrolled in colleges with low graduation rates. It's also because most colleges have an internal graduation rate gap, usually around 10 percentage points or so, between white students and students of color. But that's just the average--some institutions have gaps of 20, 30 percentage points or more, others graduate black students at a higher rate than their white peers.

College graduation is a complex phenomenon. It's partly a function of high school preparation, which for many students is substandard. It's also related to income, gender, aptitude, stick-to-it-iveness, available financial aid, and other things. But, crucially, the institutions themselves also play a role here. Some of them do a good job of supporting minority and first-generation students, particularly during the often-difficult transition to college. Others--too many others--don't. Therefore, we need stronger incentives--financial, governmental, and otherwise--for institutions to focus on helping as many minority students as possible earn degrees. Otherwise, we're going to continue to squander the aspirations of tens of thousands of minority college students every year.

Coverage in the Chronicle of Higher Education here, InsideHigherEd here, and Diverse Issues in Higher Education here.

Also, if you want to look up the numbers for your alma mater and they're not in the report, you can find them at the U.S. Department of Education's College Navigator site. Select your college and then scroll down and click on "Retention/Graduation Rate"

NYC Tenure Cont'd

NYC Educator disagrees with my take on the NYC tenure debate, and a previous post in which I cited his recitation of the many transcendently bad teachers with which he's had the misfortune to work as evidence that the tenure process in New York should be improved. 

For the most part, I like NYC Educator's take on things; it's a good blog and he's correct in saying that he "specifically told [me] that the city has been negligent in enforcing existing tenure rules for over thirty years." I should have noted that in the previous post. 

However, even his assertion of past negligence is true--and it may be--I'm not sure why it's an argument against the new proposed tenure policy. If the administration has neglected to enforce tenure in the past, why is it bad that they're trying to do so now? NYC Educator thinks they don't need value-added to weed out the bad teachers; the administration obviously thinks they'd be better off with the additional student performance data. Why are they wrong? I'm having a hard time figuring out what the administration's agenda here could be, if not to deny tenure to teachers who shouldn't get it. 

The Coin of the Realm

David Leonhardt turns in an unsatisfactory cover story in the Times Education Life supplement today about recent high-profile moves by elite universities to offer more generous financial aid to low- and middle-income students. Its starts with a dramatic moment in 2003, set in one of higher education's iconic spaces, the Thomas Jefferson-designed Rotunda of the University of Virginia. Just as a high-level meeting is about to start, the UVA President Casteen is handed a note from the press office: the University of North Carolina has just announced a new aid program for low-income students:

The program touched a nerve with Mr. Casteen. The son of a shipyard worker from Portsmouth, in the southeastern corner of the state, he was the first member of his family to attend college. But during his 13 years as president, tuition had risen significantly, as it had at many colleges, and the Virginia campus had become even more dominated by upper-middle-class students. North Carolina’s new policy, which had the potential to lure students away from Virginia, could aggravate the situation.

Before the meeting had ended, Mr. Casteen announced to the room that he wanted the financial-aid staff to come up with a response. He wanted it quickly, he said, and he wanted something bigger than what North Carolina was doing. Four months later, at the board’s next meeting, it approved a plan that was similar but somewhat more generous than North Carolina’s. Making sure everyone had a chance to attend college, Mr. Casteen would say, was “a fundamental obligation of a free culture.”

The article goes on to describe similar announcements in subsequent years from the likes of Harvard, Yale and others, chronicling an escalating oneupsmanship of generosity. 

The problem with this narrative is the implication that the socioeconomic makeup of a given college is primarily a function of who chooses to apply to go there. It's not. It's a function of who the college chooses to let in.  This is not to say that these programs aren't a step in the right direction, in and of themselves--they are. And all else being equal, they've probably had some effect on increasing the economic diversity of the applicant pool -- although it would be nice to see some hard numbers to back this up.

But increasing aid to needy students amounts to elite colleges spending a small amount of what is, for them, an abundant resource--money. The real scarce coin of the realm in elite higher education is admissions. According to Institute for College Access and Success, only seven percent of UVA students received need-based Pell grants in 2005-2006, two years after that fateful day in the rotunda. That's the lowest rate for any public university in America. If President Casteen announces that UVA will no longer provide admissions preferences to legacies, the children of rich people, or recruited athletes in upper-income sports like crew and polo, and will fill those slots with first-generation and low-income students, then I'll start to believe UVA is taking it's "fundamental obligation" seriously. 

The funny thing is, Leonhardt obviously understands this, since the back half of the article is filled with caveats about why, for the aforementioned and other reasons, this whole story isn't such a big deal after all. You see this sometimes, when someone sets out to write a story with a particular thesis, reports the issue thoroughly and represents the opposing point view fairly, but can't quite come to grips with the fact that maybe the thesis should have actually been something else. 

There's also this odd justification for recent policies at Harvard and elsewhere extending aid to the upper middle-class:

Expanding the pool of aid recipients may also make the policies more popular among students. It would be rather counterproductive if the children of midlevel corporate executives, who were paying $50,000 in tuition and fees, ended up resenting the children of police officers, who were paying nothing.

Is that what we're worried about now? Not enflaming class resentment among the children of corporate executives? That doesn't say much for the influence of an elite college education, does it?

Teaching, the Null Hypothesis, and the Status Quo

I've had a couple of off-line conversations in the last week--one about measuring teacher effectiveness, the other about college graduation rates--that both led me to try answer the eternal question of : Why are academics so often wrong about public policy questions?

The short answer is: they're trying to answer the wrong question.

The somewhat longer answer is this: Academics and researchers are trained to think about evidence in a specific way. Their default position is the null hypothesis: unless you can prove something is true, it's not true. This is a completely appropriate way to approach the kind of work that academics do. If your job is to add bricks to the edifice of collective human knowledge, you want to make sure they can stand some weight--otherwise, the whole thing can come crashing down. The generally accepted standard for "statistical significance," for example, is 95% confidence, which means that at least 19 times out of 20, the relationship you're observing is real and not the result of random variation. Nobody disputes this standard, and indeed people sometimes hold out for 99% confidence or more.

The essential public policy question, by contrast, is not: "Is the null hypothesis true?" It's: "Should we keep doing what we're doing, or do something else?" It's a choice between change and the status quo. Neither of those alternatives deserves any special consideration; we should (allowing for the transition costs of change) choose whichever is most likely to achieve whatever policy goals we may have. In other words, the standard in public policy isn't 95%, it's whatever is most likely to be best: 51%. Of course, something closer to 95% would be better, but policy choices are rarely that obvious.

Crucially, in the policy world, choices cannot be delayed or avoided, because not changing is, itself, a choice. A vote against change is a vote for the status quo. Take public education. There are 50 million students in public school today in this country. They're going to be there again on Monday morning, and on Tuesday, and on Wednesday, and in the days and weeks after that. Their schools will likely remain as they are unless we change them. Not changing them endorses that sameness. And I think most reasonable people agree that for too many students, the schools aren't working well enough.

Yet academics consistently treat policy questions like academic questions. They mistake the status quo for the null hypothesis. For example, one alleged social scientist recently concluded that, given some unresolved questions about a proposed value-added teacher effectiveness method, "it's not ready." From her perspective, the question is: can we be really, really sure--say, 95% sure--that value-added measures are accurate?

If we had infinite time and resources to construct the perfect teacher evaluation process, this might be the right question. But of course, we don't. Instead, we have schools--which will, I must emphasize, re-open their doors in less than 72 hours, whether we resolve these issues over the weekend or not--where the status quo process for evaluating teachers is perfunctory, inaccurate, and all but useless. It is a process that allows very bad teachers to stay in their jobs (If you don't believe me, read this). In that context, "it's not ready" is exactly the same as saying "let's keep the current terrible system," because that's the policy choice currently on the table, today.

In this way, the academic approach to public policy, where all changes must meet academic standards of proof, is biased toward the status quo in a huge and damaging way. We're sticking with policies that everyone knows are bad because some people aren't quite sure enough that changes would be good.

Draining the Pool

The news that Lynn Olson, Education Week's senior correspondent, is decamping to the Gates Foundation after more than two decades of writing thoughful trend pieces and news analyses reflects a disquiting trend in American education: the number of experienced journalists writing about schools and colleges for national newspapers and magazines is reaching a disturbingly low level.


Peg Tyre, who has covered the beat for seven years at Newsweek is leaving the magazine at the end of the month under a buy-out program that's going to leave the newsmagazine with over 100 fewer staffers. Claudia Wallis, who has written many of Time's education covers, has left the magazine. Ben Wildavsky departed U.S. News a few years ago for the Kauffman Foundation. And The New York Times has reportedly spiked its regular Wednesday education coverage.


Such cuts are part and parcel of the financial woes inflicted on print media by the advent of Internet advertising. But the collateral damage to education journalism is substantial. There are today very few journalists with the knowledge and experience to write authoritatively for national, non-specialist audiences. There's been a proliferation of education bloggers ready to share their opinions (yes, I'm writing this on a blog). But smart, analytic long-form writing on education's big themes, the sort of work that Lynn did for a long time from her independent perch at Education Week, is becoming harder and harder to find. As Eric Alterman wrote recently in The New Yorker about journalism generally in the Internet era: "We are about to enter a fractured, chaotic world of news, characterized by superior community conversation [via blogging], but a decidedly diminished level of first-rate journalism."


The news industry's economic woes eventually may sort themselves out. Until then, we need to find new ways to support the production of first-rate writing about education in national general-interest publications. Several foundations have taken steps in that direction by funding a new "public editor" position at the Education Writers Association and education fellowships at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. But we need to do much more if want to elevate education to the status it deserves in the national public policy conversation.

Finn Speaks

Proving once again (as if it were even necessary at this point) that when The Quick and the ED speaks, people listen, Fordham's Checker Finn dips his toe in the blogosphere for the first time, by calling foul on the "bizzare piggybacking and ahistoricism" of an upcoming Heritage Foundation event titled "25 Years After A Nation at Risk: Returning to President Reagan's Vision for American Education." The event description says:

When [A Nation At Risk] was released in 1983, President Reagan outlined a bold vision for reforming education. He called for increasing parental choice, limiting federal government involvement, and restoring state and local control in education. But conventional wisdom and education reforms have followed a different path over the past quarter-century – increasing federal authority and expanding government control of education.

As Finn notes, Reagan may have said some stuff about vouchers and whatnot when the report was originally released, but he quickly realized that A Nation at Risk advocated for a completely different agenda--an agenda that he then embraced, an agenda that in fact tracks fairly closely with the past quarter-century of education reforms that Heritage derides.

This is a good illustration of the deep philosophical division among right-of-center folks when it comes to the public schools. On the one hand, you've got the Heritage / Cato types who basically see public education as a gigantic, unreformable black hole exerting immense gravitational pull on the public treasury, a prime generator of demand for the taxation they hate above all else and a revenue source for the unions that are a close second. Thus: vouchers, privatization, abolishing the U.S. Department of Education, whatever.

Then there's the Fordham / Checker Finn / A Nation at Risk perspective, which also starts from a very critical view of the present public education system, but concludes that the answer lies in more rigorous standards and greater governmental accountability for results. There are elements of the basic libertarian / authoritarian divide here; Cato trusts in the magic of the market and parental choice, while Finn thinks the answer lies in more rigor, seriousness, professionalism, and tough accountability.

One of the major findings of A Nation at Risk, for example, was that high school students were taking a mish-mash of low-level courses that didn't prepare them for college or anything else. The report called for students to take a "new basics" curriculum -- four years of English, three years of math, three years of science, etc. The libertarian would leave this up to local schools and parents to decide, while others would say no, everyone needs to learn these things whether they like it or not, and it's the responsibility of society and schools to enforce these standards.

While there are some commonalities between the Heritage and Fordham approaches to education--suspicion of unions, good feelings toward choice-based reforms, and a general sense that the schools waste vaste amounts of money--there are also areas that are fundamentally irreconcilable, and it's silly to pretend otherwise.

Hearing Back on Benwood

I've been getting a lot of feedback on the report about the Benwood Initiative that we recently released. Some who appreciated the "nuance" of the findings, others who had great methodological questions, and a smattering of folks who offered terse commentary that can be summed up as "you're saying it takes everything to change the culture of schools and raise student performance, which in turn says nothing and makes it impossible to make choices and so basically there's nothing we can do." Well, I don't know about everything but yes, you do have to change the culture of schools and that does take a whole lot more than any single policy change. And I would hope that could help inform the choices that schools and districts make--so they don't put all their eggs into one basket and expect immediate hatching. I've heard from a few district and school leaders too, and have engaged in some back-and-forth with them. This I find the most heartening-- to hear their thoughtful comments and their ideas about how this relates to their own schools and districts.

The findings have also been misread and misreported. The Baltimore Sun ran a story about Baltimore County teachers who may have to reapply for their jobs as part of restructuring. In it, they reported, "Education Sector, has a new report studying inner-city schools in Chattanooga, Tenn., that made dramatic gains. While those schools replaced some staff members, the report found, the teachers who were most successful were veterans who went through extensive professional development."

To clarify, our research found that about 2/3 of teachers who were teaching in Benwood schools were rehired during the reapplication process. These were not necessarily veteran teachers nor is there any evidence to suggest that veteran teachers who were rehired were more successful than newer non-veteran teachers. What the report shows is that a group of mostly the same teachers improved over time, debunking the notion that the slate was wiped clean of existing teachers and replaced with new and better ones.

Flypaper Cometh

The Thomas B. Fordham Institute has launched a new education blog, Flypaper. This is a welcome addition to the edublogosphere and one that I imagine will quickly become a staple of most people's daily edublog shortlist. Why I don't always agree with the folks at Fordham, they're smart and have a lot of interesting, often provocative ideas about education, generally from a kind of reformist center-right perspective. I note, however, there have been no posts from Fordham head honcho Checker Finn as of yet. Finn may not want to admit this to himself, but he was born to blog. Give in to the inevitable, Checker!

It Must Be Mine...Oh Yes...

I was at a concert at the 9:30 Club tonight and saw some guy wearing this T-shirt as I was walking out. Now, as you all know, we work pretty hard here to bring you the best education policy analysis going, and this is part of our job. But the TV recaps? The travelogues and concert reviews? That stuff pretty much happens on my own time. So this seems like a good opportunity for some enterprising readers to band together and do me a solid in return by buying me one of these T-shirts. I'm a size Large, send it to me c/o

Education Sector

1201 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 850

Washington, DC 20036

Shafting Poor Students in Higher Education

There's been a fair amount of analysis in recent years about the various ways that low-income students are getting short-changed by higher education financial aid systems, with both states and individual institutions devoting a larger percentage of financial aid dollars to so-called "merit aid" programs that disproportionately benefit well-off students, i.e. those who need the least help. Crucially--and I can't emphasize this enough--much of this aid is not based on merit but rather amounts to colleges throwing $5,000 to $10,000 towards a rich student in the hopes that he/she will be flattered into enrolling and his/her parents will write a check for the remaining thirty-five grand, plus additional donations to the alumni fund down the road.

But there's been surprisingly little attention given to an arguably bigger and more important funding inequity: the public colleges and universities that lower-income, lower-achieving students tend to attend receive and spend a lot less money than the public universities where the wealtheir higher-achieving students go to school. In some states, the financial disparity, even after excluding spending on research, can run close to $10,000 per student or more. In K-12 education, number like that frequently get states thrown into court where they face, and lose, huge school funding lawsuits resulting in billion dollar settlements. In higher education, we think it's justice. This is the subject of my column in today's InsideHigherEd.

Donor Quirks

Yesterday's New York Times article about the strings some donors attach to their gifts to universities reminded me of my own alma mater. Thanks to two dog-loving donors, William and Mary houses the second largest collection of cynogetica: books about dogs. From the Swem Library website, "This is the second largest collection of books about dogs in this country and continues to grow through its own endowment. It contains scholarly work that dates back to the sixteenth century as well as children's literature, breed guides, and the records of the American Kennel Club."

Now there's a good use of an endowment. Hey, it's the reason I went there.

The Diversity Dodge

In the Post, Jay Mathews writes about the long-standing practice among Virginia public universities of discriminating against applicants from Northern Virginia.  No one denies it; a UVA spokesman said "Our primary goal is to enroll an academically strong and diverse class of first-year and transfer students each year. As a state institution, we are interested in enrolling students from all areas of the commonwealth."

This is a clear case of universities taking a worthy and important value--diversity--and rendering it meaningless by using it as cover for their acquiescence to a political spoils system. 

I understand the need to have diverse perspectives on at an institution of higher learning. While I probably wouldn't give that concern as much weight as universities typically do, it's not an illegitimate goal. But a student who grew up in Roanoke isn't exactly bringing the same kind of diversity to the table as a student from Madagascar or Tibet.  The "all areas of the commonwealth" justification also doesn't make much sense; those areas clearly don't include the quarter-acre of land on which the rejected student featured in the piece happens to live. 

This amounts to selfish legislators from Southern Virginia imposing a confiscatory, redistributionist educational opportunity tax on unsuspecting teenagers in Northern Virginia, and universities that would rather go along with it and hide behind the diversity excuse than stand up to public officials who might cut their funding. 

Teacher Tests in Peru

What if teacher applicants had to take a national test? How many would pass? If this were Peru that would be less than 1 percent. Way less. NPR ran a quick story last week on the Peruvian Ministry of Education's attempts to get a handle on poor teacher performance, covered in more detail here (thx to Abdul for the heads-up). As reported, Peru does a relatively good job getting its kids through school--most graduate from its high school equivalent--but the quality of learning is low. Peru was the worst performer of 43 countries on reading, math and science on the 2000 PISA test. So to improve teacher quality, the ministry of education established a test and required all public school teacher applicants to take it. Test takers needed to score at least 14 out of 20 points to pass. Only 151 of over 180,000 teachers in Peru managed to pass the test.

That's one hundred and fifty one teacher applicants out of 180,000 that passed. That’s an astoundingly low number. So I emailed a friend of mine who lives in Lima. She’s not a teacher but she works with kids in an arts program and I figured she might have an interesting take on what’s happening down there. Here’s what she said:

The whole thing seems way out of hand. Was the exam exceptionally difficult? I don’t know- maybe it was. But from what I’ve heard, it was basic. I think the people we’ve got preparing to teach are just really underqualified to teach children. This is a major problem in the long term but even right now it’s a big mess. Last year it was crazy. They declared a huelga indefinida [indefinite strike] because they wouldn’t accept that they might have to take a test. School started but there were still local strikes and teachers didn't show up. So my kids were hanging around a lot, doing nothing. But Macio [teacher friend] is pissed because he’s insistent that this isn’t really even about the testing. They want more money for the whole education system here and more training and support. So my kids are in school now again but it’s still a big mess and there’s a lot of hostility.

The strike last summer was reportedly pretty violent and brought the school system to a standstill. An agreement was reached after 15 days but it didn't end the controversy over how best to improve teacher quality in Peru. In all, it seems pretty clear that the pressure is building on both the labor side and the school management side. This isn't surprising given that we’re talking about a major labor problem if the majority of teachers and teacher applicants lack the knowledge and skills they need to teach kids well. The teachers and the union, are going to have to do more than strike if they hope to improve their profession and the education of Peruvian children. But it cuts both ways and the ministry of education is going to have to acknowledge that testing the teachers may help to diagnose the gravity of the problem but it’s not going to solve it. And they’re going to have to deal with the fact that improving teaching will not happen over night (on the bright side, we see some efforts underway here and with help from outside Peru here and here).

Simple Headlines for a Complex Issue

Declaring a crisis in student loans certainly makes good headlines and it's a great front page piece in April, when many families are reviewing financial aid offers and figuring out how to finance college. But, as the last quote in yesterday's Washington Post piece on the issue pointed out,

"The congressional action and the media coverage on this issue is doing a massive disservice to students and families, many of whom are concerned about paying for college already," said Luke Swarthout, higher education advocate for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. "We know many of them are adverse to debt, and for lenders to be sending out a message of crisis in order to secure themselves a bailout potentially could dissuade families from seeking available financing options."

Of course, that didn't stop the Post's editors from using a headline that read, "Exit of College Lenders Sets Off Scramble to Fill Breach." While it's important to report on the problems many student loan companies are facing right now, it is equally as important to point out that the federal government has tools at hand--the lender of last resort program and the Direct Loan program--to address the problem. And that there are many lenders that are still offering student loans.

Another issue that often is missing from current news reports on student loans is whether it's a good idea in the first place to allow institutions to include tens of thousands of dollars in loans, especially high-interest private loans, in their 'aid' packages. The New America Foundation does a great job in this post of pointing out how the easy availability of high-cost private loans, loans that don't have a government guarantee or a fixed interest rate, has allowed colleges to raise tuitions and shift from need-based to merit-based aid (e.g., more grant money going to higher income students).

I also can't help noting that the largest guarantor of these private loans, the Education Resources Institute (TERI), filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. TERI credited their financial troubles to disappearing demand among investors for bonds backed by student loans. But you also have to wonder if investors are worried about the potential for high default rates among these private student loans in light of their recent rapid growth, particularly among students with poor credit histories and attending institutions with low graduation rates. Much like the sub-prime mortgage markets, these sub-prime student loans are ripe for default. But unfortunately for students, unlike TERI, they won't get any relief in bankruptcy from student loan debt.

If Only All College Students Were Educated Like Athletes

That's the thesis of Education Sector Co-Jefe Andy Rotherham's op-ed in USA Today. Many undergraduates struggle to succeed and graduate with very little in the way of counseling or academic attention from their institutions. But that's not because those institutions are incapable of providing such support; they often spend lots of time and money helping the subset of students whose continued enrollment they actually care about: major-sports athletes.

Crucially, Andy's piece also contains an element that all experienced op-ed writers know virtually guarantees placement in a major newspaper, something so compelling that persuasive writing instructors absolutely drill this into their student's heads: name-check Kevin Carey. Seriously, no opinion page editor can resist, I swear.

It's All About Tennessee

We just released a report about the teacher-centered Benwood initiative in Chattanooga, Tennessee. In it, I argue that the successful turn-around of eight failing elementary schools was not because the schools rid themselves of their existing teaching staffs but because they put forth an all-hands-on-deck effort to improve teaching and learning in those schools. It’s a tale of teacher improvement. You can read about it here or see the whole thing here.

Also in Tennessee, Memphis may have lost but the Vols took the title over Stanford. As someone who’s learned a lot of good things about UT recently (UT-Chattanooga as one of many partners in the Benwood initiative) and as a former Cal Bear, I couldn’t be happier about that.

Tenure Cont'd

Ed Notes offers a justification for banning the use of student performance data in teacher tenure decisions: Using test scores to estimate teacher effectiveness is methodologically complicated. (This is true). Therefore, it should be outlawed. (This is absurd).

Most important things, including teaching, are complicated. If we squelch every attempt to understand such things and act on that knowledge, we'll be left knowing very little about very little, which more or less describes the state of knowledge about teacher effectiveness today. Indeed, most teacher policy failures are a function of privileging easily measurable unimportant things, like master's degrees and state certification, over difficult-to-measure important things, like effectiveness in boosting test scores.

Ed Notes also offers the "it hasn't been tested" argument, i.e. the chicken-and-egg theory of policy obstructionism: it can't be tried because it hasn't been proven; it can't be proven because it hasn't been tried.

Meanwhile, some unknown person who claims to be a social scientist but isn't willing to offer any credentials to prove it labels all critiques of the union's role in legally banning evidence of student learning from judgments of teacher effectiveness as "union bashing." Because if you criticize unions, ipso facto, you're a union basher--as is, apparently, the famously conservative, union-hating New York Times editorial page, which said:

The ban is so nonsensical that lawmakers clearly decided that the only way to get it passed was to keep it hidden deep in the budget documents. Nobody in Albany would say who is behind this language. The driving force, however, is the powerful teachers’ union that gives lots of money and time to state campaigns.

I'd always been under the impression that "science," and thus "social science," involved certain values of empiricism, evidence, and transparency of information., as opposed to endorsing late-night money- and power-driven legislative skullduggery that's antithetical to those things. But maybe "science" means something different wherever they hand out anonymous, theoretical social science degrees, I don't know. 

There It Is

The Times is reporting that, at the behest of the teachers unions, last-minute language was snuck into the New York State budget providing that "teacher[s] shall not be granted or denied tenure based on student performance data."

There's really not much one can add to that; it's hard to imagine a more unambiguous declaration of the union's total disregard for student learning when its members' jobs are at stake.

Community College Conundrum

I took the train up to Philadelphia yesterday to sit on a panel at the American Association of Community Colleges annual convention. The topic was "Community Colleges: Who Should Judge Them And How." My position was that insofar as the main purpose of community colleges is to prepare students to succeed in further education and work, the best way to judge them is to see if their students succeed in further education and work, taking into account where those students were academically and economically when they arrived in college. In the information age, when it's never been cheaper or easier to gather large amounts of data and track this kind of thing over time, there are really no resource or logistical barriers to comprehensive, long-term evaluations of college success. The only thing standing in the way is the colleges themselves, who are deeply uncomfortable with the prospect of this kind of evaluation.

I've made the same argument about four-year colleges and universities many times. It's often not well-received, and I understand why: a lot of these institutions aren't really in the education business. They're in the sorting business, or the prestige business, or the research business, or the professional sports business (great game last night, btw). The status quo method of judging colleges puts them at the top of the heap in terms of status and resources, so they have nowhere to go but down.

Community colleges, by contrast, are at the bottom of the heap. They get fewer public resources to do a more difficult job. They're selling what economists call an inferior good--something people consume less of the more money they have. To most people, every four-year college is better than every two-year college.

This is, of course, completely wrong: there are community colleges out there that are clearly teaching better than many if not most four-year institutions, precisely because they're in the education business. Two-year institutions have nothing to lose and a lot to gain by shifting to a way of judging higher education institutions that puts more emphasis on student learning and success in the workplace. Even if it turned out that the flagship university really is doing better than the the local community college, the actual difference between them is almost surely less than the current perceived difference.

Yet while the overall tenor of the conversation in Philadelphia was less openly hostile than I've seen from the four-year crowd, and a bunch of people came up to me afterward to say "I think you're right," it was obvious that few people were comfortable standing up in a room full of their peers and saying "We should embrace this approach." I think that's because there's something in higher education that's even more powerful than rational self-interest: a culture of politeness, where administrators are loathe to ever speak ill (in public) of their peer institutions, or to embrace any kind of measurement system that would, inevitably and properly, identify some institutions as low-performing.

Hopefully the time will soon come when the two-year institutions, along with the many less selective four-year universities, realize that they have nothing to lose but their chains.