So apparently Ben Carson will run education for Donald Trump? Well, when Campbell Brown of The 74 asked him about education he said, “Campbell, I think no child should be left behind.” OK then…
Meanwhile, in actual school improvement goings on, a lot on charters: Here’s a new NACPS report on the health of the charter movement. A lot of data.
Don’t agree with everything Greg Richmond is saying here, but a lot of it and it’s an important read and challenge to the charter school world and education world more generally:
….we need to change. We cannot do better tomorrow by continuing the ways of yesterday. We need to improve. One way that we are changing public education is through charter schools. Charters are not the only way we will improve public education, but they can be one powerful way.
The charter school movement is 25 years old; 6,800 charter schools in America serve nearly 3 million students. Many of these schools are achieving extraordinary results. But then again, some of them are not. The outcomes have been mixed, both here in Philadelphia and nationally.
So when we examine how well we are doing for the next generation, if we are honest, we have to acknowledge that all charter schools are not fully delivering on their promise. We need to do better.
Unfortunately, progress in charter schooling has been difficult and frustrating. In recent years, we seem trapped inside policies and practices that prevent progress, as charter school proponents and opponents wage a never-ending war.
Also on charters, Andy Smarick wrote a speech for DC Mayor Muriel Bowser. And here’s a Bellwether deep dive on the charter movement and where things stand and what new challenges are (pdf).
New Brookings analysis on dropping out and income inequality.
The data are consistent with this prediction: low-income youth are more likely to drop out of school if they live in a place with a greater gap between the bottom and middle of the income distribution.
Related, anyone who works or has worked with young people gets that the discount rate is pretty high on anything you tell them. So dropping out can be an interesting phenomena. We tell kids non-stop it’s a terrible choice – and it’s not a good one in the long term for sure. But, in the near-term the adverse effects are not always visible. In fact, dropping out can lead in the near term to more freedom, more disposable cash, and previously out of reach lifestyle choices. That’s not so bad! And that’s what young people see immediately with regard to their peers rather than the persistent effects that last a lifetime even if their in a community with those effects around them. Seems like a solvable problem in terms of reaching kids before they make bad choices and one we could do more on.
Rick Hess on the teacher evaluation status quo.
Back in the 1990s, there was a sense that reforms failed when advocates got bogged down in efforts to change “professional practice” while ignoring the role of policy. Reformers learned the lesson, but they may have learned it too well. While past reformers tried to change educational culture without changing policy, today’s frequently seem intent on changing policy without changing culture. The resulting policies are overmatched by the incentives embedded in professional and political culture, and the fact that most school leaders and district officials are neither inclined nor equipped to translate these policy dictates into practice.
New cost adjustment tools from EdBuild. Evidence and education. South Dakota on the move! Breaking! We can do a better job with teacher hiring. It’s all about relationships.
Cami Anderson talks teachers and Newark and the payoffs.
Employer sponsored quality assurance in higher education? Income share agreements for financing higher education.
Yesterday I wrote about how if school sucks or alienates parents then kids and families won’t want to be there.
Interesting parallels between this column and some of our education debate. Justin Fox notes some positive trends on key issues and asks why people are upset about the status quo in America. Well, it’s great that the trade deficit is declining but if you’re in a place adversely impacted by trade or globalization you can’t feed your family trendlines. In the same way, people who say that public schools are doing great – when you separate out the poor kids – ignore the concentrated costs of our school problems on some Americans. In addition, trade and school reform probably share the trait of being overall drivers of progress and improved standards of living but disruptive and creators of acute costs for particular constituencies.
I enjoyed Rick’s piece and appreciate your featuring it. But here’s my question: what does it say about this enterprise (and indeed “local control”) that the managers (principals) generally have no capacity or will to truly evaluate the professionals they’re there to lead?
The fact that the districts have gamed the Duncan initiative is one thing. But how did we get to virtually 100 percent of the teachers getting good or excellent ratings when everyone, including union leaders, acknowledge that at least 10 percent are sub par?
Since teaching is the key variable, this abdication of leadership and responsibility in much of the system is a killer to the goal of achieving excellence.
But how did we get to virtually 100 percent of the teachers getting good or excellent ratings when everyone, including union leaders, acknowledge that at least 10 percent are sub par?
We don’t have that. Very conveniently ignored on this matter is that most of these subpar teachers don’t last the 2,3 or 4 years it takes to get tenure.
Look at Prince George’s County Public Schools (former stepping stone for Broad Book Club graduates like “Dr” John Deasy and Dr. William Hite.
Nearly 40% of their teachers are not tenured.
www1.pgcps.org/employeeperformanceandevaluation/index.aspx?id=220910
In years past, it did not take an top heavy, bureaucratic endeavor like the current test score based evaluations.
The ineffective quit.
But there is money to be made “advising” school systems.
One thing that gets missed: A lot of inner-city kids who drop out (correctly) know that they’re LEARNING NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING, in school. They put in no effort in class. They do no homework. (This may be true as well in the low-tracked suburban classes and the rural schools, I just know less about them).
If these teens show up and do nothing, the social promotion machine keeps them afloat.
(Which I think may have accelerated, actually, as perverse outcome of Jay Greene and US News in 2001 figuring out grad rates; i.e., I wonder if 80%+ of the improvement in grad rates is actually social promotion).
It’s NOT like these kids are dropping out from, say, an exercise program where they actually do something. It’s not like saying “eat your spinach” when you say “stay in school.”
I can’t think of the right analogy — but it’s literally saying “Sit there for years, endure the sheer stupidity and boredom, don’t try, we’ll hand you a certificate.” It’s not “eat your spinach” it’s “eat this tasteless cracker and we’ll hand you a paper later.”
Doing nothing but playing with your phone, never trying, never reading, never doing more than nominally paying attention….how do you think that affects a teenager’s genuine self-concept?
So you quit. For an Af-Am young man in particular, what then? Typically: no job. Then:
6 hours a day of video games (hurts self-worth even more), or something else that is even worse.
In the end: Kids often choose b/w “staying in a school that expects NOTHING of them” (which hurts self concept), or leaving but not finding a job (which hurts self concept).
One thing not mentioned in regards to teacher evaluations is that many principals keep marginal teachers for fear that the replacement will be worse, or that the position will be left vacant for a long period and they will have to use long term subs.