The Education Gadfly Weekly

This inaptly named annual report from the OECD (the volume runs to some 500 pages) offers a plethora of data points for member nations looking to size themselves up against their peers. It will tell you how many students graduate from high school and from college—and the relative earnings of each group (a college degree pays off most handily in Brazil and the Eastern European countries). It will tell you how much is spent per pupil—and what the public and private investment in education is (only Chile, South Korea, and the United Kingdom see more than 20 percent of their education funding coming from the private sector). Along with all these crunched numbers, the OECD provides an interesting analysis of how schools are held to account in its member states. Generally, a combination of three mechanisms—regulatory, performance, and market accountability—is used, though the balance within this combo is shifting. Regulatory accountability has historically been the main story in most member states, but performance accountability—in the form of low-stakes national assessments (now given in thirty of the thirty-five member states at the primary level) and high-stakes national examinations (given in twenty-three of thirty-five nations at the upper secondary level)—is gaining ground. (As for market accountability, we’re told that it’s “emphasized” by countries as important but is rarely seen in practice, as the necessary conditions for its success—widespread school choice, student-based funding, and information access among them—simply don’t exist.) If you’re interested in another pile of informative data—or want more than just the skinny on accountability abroad, dive in.

This report by UPenn professors Richard Ingersoll and Henry May answers a touchy question in education reform: What causes the minority-teacher shortage? To this end, the authors compile data from all six cycles of the NCES Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and its supplemental Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) (running from 1987-88 to 2007-08)—though they focus on the 2003-04 SASS and 2004-05 TFA. They find that the minority-teacher shortage does not arise from poor recruitment: Over the past two decades, the white teaching force has increased by 41 percent while the minority teaching force increased by 96 percent. (Interestingly, both the male and female minority teaching forces mushroomed in this manner.) Rather, our dearth of minority teachers comes from low rates of retention: For four of the six SASS cycles, minority-teacher turnover rates were significantly higher than those for white teachers. And this gap has widened in recent years. And don’t blame poverty rates for the turnovers. While minority teachers are more likely to work in low-income urban schools, neither factor (poverty rate or urban status) affected their mobility. Instead, Ingersoll and May find that minority educators in schools with the worst organizational conditions (lack of classroom autonomy, ineffectual administrations, and undisciplined students) were almost twice as likely to exit the profession as those in schools with the best organizational conditions. (Though white-teacher turnover was also influenced by these conditions, the affect was much less severe.) Can’t blame them.

“Recruitment, Retention and the Minority Teacher Shortage,” by Richard Ingersoll and Henry May, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, September 2011.

With the Obama/Duncan NCLB-waiver announcement imminent and support for state-run accountability systems swelling, this Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) report is especially timely. Using “budget forensics” for eight states—including California, New York, and Texas—analysts evaluated how these jurisdictions allocate funding, and inferred each state’s capacity to spearhead school-improvement initiatives. The upshot: State education agencies (SEAs) aren’t yet ready to take up the mantle of school improvement in toto—on this front, they lack both experience and funding. (Louisiana was the one outlier, as the state oversees NOLA’s Recovery School District.) While CRPE’s report reaches few actionable conclusions, it does raise a warning flag for policymakers re-crafting state accountability systems: Before states can get very far with school improvement, a solid foundation must be laid.

America’s laser focus on reading, math, and (recently) science blinds us to our current crisis of civic illiteracy. STEM-proponent Norm Augustine makes this point in the Wall Street Journal this week. And an impressive roster of luminaries—including former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, former education secretary Rod Paige, and CMO founders Seth Andrew and Mike Feinberg—does the same in this volume. Edited by WSJ assistant editor and wunderkind David Feith, the book features twenty-two brief and wide-ranging essays articulating the problems with civics education, explaining what works in the K-12 classroom—even how to fight civics neglect in the ivory towers of universities. Unfortunately, the number and diversity of authors yields a bit of a cacophony of policy objectives: Don’t look here for consensus or clear conclusions. Instead, you’ll find in this volume a worthy array of thoughtful observations and recommendations. Which is a pretty good civics lesson in and of itself.

Fordham's ideas of ed reform
spread far and wide
(Photo by Simon Koleznik)

After the 2009 PISA results went live and catalyzed our latest “Sputnik moment” (and after the release of any international assessments results, for that matter), America found itself humbled—and even a bit sheepish. Within the month, reports emerged—and continue to roll in—that further document our middling performance and set forth lessons to learn from abroad. Finland, South Korea, and Singapore were idolized. This week, we at Fordham are picking ourselves up and dusting off our knees. Heck, we’re even cracking a faint smile. A recent piece in the Economist points to increased school choice, strong standards and accountability systems, and decentralization as pillars of systemic success. Going further, the article showcases Poland’s fourth-largest city, which has significantly moved the needle on student achievement by adopting a “no excuses” culture and accountability model. Empowering school leaders helped spur change in Ontario’s schools. Unscientific, sure—but, for now, we’ll take it. Expect more from us in coming months on how other nations are implementing these reforms (and, what, if anything, we can learn from them).

Fingers crossed that Duncan
keeps his R&D promise
(Photo by Carmello Fernando)

By 2015, South Korea will be entirely textbook-free, with students accessing content through tablet computers. Uruguay offers a PC to every pupil. Can you feel the fear of being left on the wrong side of education’s digital divide creeping in? So could Arne Duncan (and unlikely bedfellow Reed Hastings). Last Friday, the Secretary announced the official launch of the dormant Digital Promise nonprofit, a government-funded but privately run entity intended to “advance breakthrough technologies” in education, “while creating a business environment that rewards innovation and entrepreneurship.” (Though this Digital Promise initiative was first written into federal code through the 2008 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, it has gone unfunded, and largely forgotten, until Duncan’s recent revival.) The free-market backlash was swift, with Jay Greene warning that, at best, the feds would stifle innovators with a bureaucratic government agency, and, at worst, facilitate another Solyndra-esque debacle. Yet warnings of an education-industrial complex may be premature: Digital Promise has potential to spur needed technological breakthroughs—if it sticks to basic research and development. (While the feds have proven themselves wholly inept at guiding the market and choosing winning innovators, they are well-placed to invest in early-stage research, a vital component to tech advancements, but one that is rarely lucrative for private investors.) And although the actual Digital Promise website is discouragingly vague, there are some signs that it may do just that. If so, kudos to the DOE. If it goes further than that, Jay can say, “I told you so.”

This inaptly named annual report from the OECD (the volume runs to some 500 pages) offers a plethora of data points for member nations looking to size themselves up against their peers. It will tell you how many students graduate from high school and from college—and the relative earnings of each group (a college degree pays off most handily in Brazil and the Eastern European countries). It will tell you how much is spent per pupil—and what the public and private investment in education is (only Chile, South Korea, and the United Kingdom see more than 20 percent of their education funding coming from the private sector). Along with all these crunched numbers, the OECD provides an interesting analysis of how schools are held to account in its member states. Generally, a combination of three mechanisms—regulatory, performance, and market accountability—is used, though the balance within this combo is shifting. Regulatory accountability has historically been the main story in most member states, but performance accountability—in the form of low-stakes national assessments (now given in thirty of the thirty-five member states at the primary level) and high-stakes national examinations (given in twenty-three of thirty-five nations at the upper secondary level)—is gaining ground. (As for market accountability, we’re told that it’s “emphasized” by countries as important but is rarely seen in practice, as the necessary conditions for its success—widespread school choice, student-based funding, and information access among them—simply don’t exist.) If you’re interested in another pile of informative data—or want more than just the skinny on accountability abroad, dive in.

This report by UPenn professors Richard Ingersoll and Henry May answers a touchy question in education reform: What causes the minority-teacher shortage? To this end, the authors compile data from all six cycles of the NCES Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and its supplemental Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) (running from 1987-88 to 2007-08)—though they focus on the 2003-04 SASS and 2004-05 TFA. They find that the minority-teacher shortage does not arise from poor recruitment: Over the past two decades, the white teaching force has increased by 41 percent while the minority teaching force increased by 96 percent. (Interestingly, both the male and female minority teaching forces mushroomed in this manner.) Rather, our dearth of minority teachers comes from low rates of retention: For four of the six SASS cycles, minority-teacher turnover rates were significantly higher than those for white teachers. And this gap has widened in recent years. And don’t blame poverty rates for the turnovers. While minority teachers are more likely to work in low-income urban schools, neither factor (poverty rate or urban status) affected their mobility. Instead, Ingersoll and May find that minority educators in schools with the worst organizational conditions (lack of classroom autonomy, ineffectual administrations, and undisciplined students) were almost twice as likely to exit the profession as those in schools with the best organizational conditions. (Though white-teacher turnover was also influenced by these conditions, the affect was much less severe.) Can’t blame them.

“Recruitment, Retention and the Minority Teacher Shortage,” by Richard Ingersoll and Henry May, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, September 2011.

With the Obama/Duncan NCLB-waiver announcement imminent and support for state-run accountability systems swelling, this Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) report is especially timely. Using “budget forensics” for eight states—including California, New York, and Texas—analysts evaluated how these jurisdictions allocate funding, and inferred each state’s capacity to spearhead school-improvement initiatives. The upshot: State education agencies (SEAs) aren’t yet ready to take up the mantle of school improvement in toto—on this front, they lack both experience and funding. (Louisiana was the one outlier, as the state oversees NOLA’s Recovery School District.) While CRPE’s report reaches few actionable conclusions, it does raise a warning flag for policymakers re-crafting state accountability systems: Before states can get very far with school improvement, a solid foundation must be laid.

America’s laser focus on reading, math, and (recently) science blinds us to our current crisis of civic illiteracy. STEM-proponent Norm Augustine makes this point in the Wall Street Journal this week. And an impressive roster of luminaries—including former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, former education secretary Rod Paige, and CMO founders Seth Andrew and Mike Feinberg—does the same in this volume. Edited by WSJ assistant editor and wunderkind David Feith, the book features twenty-two brief and wide-ranging essays articulating the problems with civics education, explaining what works in the K-12 classroom—even how to fight civics neglect in the ivory towers of universities. Unfortunately, the number and diversity of authors yields a bit of a cacophony of policy objectives: Don’t look here for consensus or clear conclusions. Instead, you’ll find in this volume a worthy array of thoughtful observations and recommendations. Which is a pretty good civics lesson in and of itself.