Curious2

Charter School Testing Oversight

In a previous post, I noted that some New York City charter school leaders were surprised at the lack of controls on the administration of the state tests.  Apparently, at charter schools the tests are self-administered, i.e. there are no independent monitors. 

This week, I learned another fact that surprised me.  The written sections of the tests (as opposed to the multiple choice sections) sit in boxes at the school for a week before they are sent to be graded.  Apparently, there is an administrative reason for this delay.  Whatever the reason, I can't imagine it justifying the risk of leaving these tests with the schools for a week.  In recent school visits I have heard more stories about graders observing suspicious test booklets: unusual erasures and corrections, changing handwriting, and sudden gaps in the level of writing. 

Improving this situation seems like low-hanging fruit: send independent monitors and have them remove the tests from the school on test day.  What am I missing?

Because Parents Want Them

Today, GothamSchools reported on new poll results released by Quinnipiac: "Nearly three-quarters of parent voters want more charter schools".  These results are not surprising given the parental demand for charter schools in the annual lotteries.  No one seems to track lottery statistics in a detailed manner, but, in my experience, the better charter schools are usually oversubscribed by between two and ten times.

I've seen parents literally praying at charter school lotteries.  What do these parents think about debates on "creaming"?  I think they would be perturbed by arguments that they are leaving behind the children with the least active parents, especially when those arguments come from people that would never let their own kids set foot in the schools in which some inner-city children are expected to remain.

The simplest and perhaps best argument for increasing the number of charter schools in New York City is that the parents, the ones whose voices we should be most concerned about, want more of them. 

Class Size and Charter Schools

As I continue to visit charter schools in Manhattan, I am struck with the prevalence of arrangements in which there are two teachers in a classroom.  The classrooms themselves often have between 20 to 30 children, but the kids are frequently split into two groups or some other arrangement in which they seem to be getting more attention than the typical single-teacher approach.  A few thoughts on this:

1. Aaron Pallas wrote yesterday "One of the truisms about class size reduction is that, if the student population stays constant, the only way to reduce class size is to increase the number of classes, which requires more classroom space."  This makes sense to me, but is the goal class size reduction, i.e. reducing students per foot of classroom space, or is it to reduce the student-teacher ratio in classroom settings?  Is class size important for reasons beyond the student-teacher ratio in classroom settings?  How important are these other reasons?

2. In part, charter schools are able to afford lowering the student-teacher ratio because they generally employ younger teachers and they don't participate in the UFT benefit plan.  Since most charter schools roughly follow the UFT salary scale, they can't afford to compete with salaries for the most senior teachers.

3. Charter schools sometimes utilize junior teachers or apprentice teachers (my invented titles) to work with more senior teachers.  These junior teachers often get paid less than first year teachers in traditional public schools.  Interestingly, these teachers seem to be getting practical apprentice teacher preparation in the manner suggested by many people in the comment sections from Aaron's recent post here and mine here.  Simultaneously, they are providing additional attention to students, particularly at the lower grades.

What do readers think of these charter school experiments?  Are they relevant to traditional public schools?

Teacher Certification: What About Doctors and Lawyers?

I believe that our current system of teacher certification requirements could be greatly improved.  I think we should focus more on competency exams and less on required coursework, especially if that coursework has a questionable relationship to teacher effectiveness.  Also, I think we should liberalize the ability of high-performing schools to make exceptions to any coursework-related certification requirements.   

When I debate this issue, perhaps the most common questions revolve around comparisons to doctors and lawyers.  Would you go to a doctor who didn't go to medical school?  Do you think lawyers shouldn't have to go to law school?  Here are some of my thoughts on these questions.   

1. In general, I don't have the option to see a doctor or lawyer who didn't go to professional school.  (Lawyers, in a few states, can be admitted to the bar without completing law school, but this is uncommon.)  Before the 20th century, I would have had more choices, but movements led by the medical and law schools and by professionals who were concerned with excessive competition have managed to eliminate almost all alternative routes.  (I recommend "The Social Transformation of American Medicine" by Paul Starr and "American Law in the 20th Century" by Lawrence Friedman for the gory details.)  Here is some advice from one well-known lawyer who couldn't afford law school.

2. If I had the choice, for the near future and for most matters I would use doctors and lawyers who went to well-regarded professional schools.  I can think of two reasons for this.  First, based on my experiences, the well-regarded professional schools accept talented applicants and educate them in a manner that seems valuable to me with respect to providing the services I am interested in.  Second, the free markets have not been given a chance to develop alternative preparation routes that I might prefer from a consumer standpoint.  It could turn out that a program with the same exams, less coursework, and more apprenticeship could be better, for example.

3. For some matters, I would be happy to use lawyers and doctors who didn't graduate from well-regarded professional schools.  For example, if I wanted to prepare a routine contract, I could probably save hundreds of dollars by avoiding an expensively-educated lawyer.  If I wanted a simple medical test that I felt I could interpret myself, I would try to avoid the cost of compensating an expensively-educated doctor.  For what it's worth, I think this lack of flexibility is one of the big cost problems with our current medical system. 

4. For the next four points, I quote from Diane Ravitch, who wrote an excellent short article called "A Brief History of Teacher Professionalism".  "Both law and medicine have a specific body of knowledge that the future member of the profession is required to learn...  There is persuasive evidence that those who have this knowledge are more effective than those who lack it.  This was not the case in education..."

5. "Both law and medicine have well established research-based standards and procedures... This is not the case in education, where pedagogues have debated what to teach, how to teach, how to test, whether to test, and which research methods are acceptable.  Because of this lack of consensus on even the most elementary procedures, teachers have received a constant din of conflicting signals from the leaders of the field."

6. "... [G]raduates of law and medical schools have always known that they must pass an external examination in order to be licensed in their field.  In education, however, the leaders of education programs sought to eliminate external examinations and to replace them with their own credentials."

7. "... [A]dvances in medical sciences have clearly resulted in better health for the American people."

8. Many parents send their kids to private schools which don't have education school requirements for their teachers.  This lack of a coursework requirement doesn't seem to be a public policy issue.

9. Consumers can generally choose their doctors and lawyers.  They can also "fire" their doctors and lawyers if they are not happy with their service.  Doctors and lawyers often depend on referrals for a majority of their business. Consumers can sue their doctors or lawyers for malpractice.  These consumer choice factors put a check on the efficacy of professional schools.  In general, public school parents don't have a similar choice.  (Charter schools and other forms of school choice are, of course, changing this dynamic.)

10. In general, the government doesn't operate medical practices or law firms.  The private sector management provides another check on professional school efficacy.  Doctors, for example, can be fired from medical practices.  The government-run schools have a much less efficient incentive to provide this check.  In fact, it often seems that the government incentive is to avoid providing a check.

11. Doctors and lawyers are represented by professional associations, not unions.  Teachers unions, unlike the AMA or bar associations, rigidly control compensation and other employment matters in a manner that reduces the differential value amongst competing professional schools.  In other words, union contracts greatly reduce the useful competitive dynamic amongst education schools.

As always, I hope readers (including teachers, doctors, and lawyers!) will help to improve my viewpoint on this matter.

Teaching to the Test?

"Teaching to the Test" refers to the practice of teaching in a manner designed to improve test results at the expense of some superior form of learning.  Currently, the phrase is most commonly used as an attack on certain standardized tests.  In New York, for example, students take annual standardized tests in grades 3 through 8. 

If the standardized tests are competency tests, which I think they should be, the risk of "teaching to the test" should be related to the treatment of slower students that are at risk of failing to reach measured competency unless the teaching methods are targeted to the particular testing content.  Then, for these students, the risk is that focusing on their ability to answer some form of basic competency questions is materially worse than educating them in some other manner that won't allow them to best answer these same questions.  I have always been skeptical that the probability and cost of this scenario could outweigh the benefits of basic competency testing.  

To better inform my opinion on this issue, I reviewed the New York 2008 math and ELA tests for grades 3 through 8.  I was surprised to learn that all of the recent tests are well-organized on the state website.  I randomly picked a few pages from each test and compiled them in two files (math and ELA).  To me, the questions seem to be fair and straightforward.  I have difficulty understanding what is meant by "teaching to the test" with these sorts of questions and how it could be damaging to the students.  So, I ask the reader: What are some examples of how someone might "teach to the test" with respect to these particular questions?  How would such a method be harmful to the student?  I would love to hear from teachers and school leaders in New York that are particularly concerned with the "teaching to the test" phenomenon.   

Visiting Every Charter School

As we debate the merits of charter schools, many of us have not had the time to visit one.  Many others have visited exactly one.  Although I have visited several charter schools in recent years, I decided that it would be worthwhile to visit every charter school in Manhattan.  To be more precise, I hope to visit every charter school in Manhattan that took the New York State exams last year.  Eighteen schools are on my list.

I hope to learn things that you can't learn by reading their websites or reviewing their test scores.  So far I have visited five schools.  I have written about two schools (here and here) that really impressed me.

I also hope to visit many traditional public schools as well as some magnet schools, special education schools, and private schools. Of course, in all cases, the school has to let me visit.  In my experience, charter schools are generally happy to have visitors. 

All suggestions for what I should be looking for on my visits are encouraged!

Creaming, Part 2

Yesterday, I wrote about the relevance of the "creaming" accusation with respect to analyzing the relative performance of charter schools as compared to traditional public schools.  (One commenter made a good point that will probably lead to a follow-up post.)  In this post, I will write about the relevance of "creaming" with respect to equity (or "fairness") issues and school funding issues. 

As far as the fairness of "creaming",  I focus on fairness to students.  First of all, as must be mentioned frequently, charter schools accept students based on a lottery that parents voluntarily enter.  It seems uncontroversial that educational options are a good thing for the students that are entered into the lottery.  What about the kids that are "left behind"?  All evidence I have seen suggests that they, too, are better off in that traditional public schools respond positively to pressures from competitive school options.  I have never seen an analysis that suggests that schools get worse when faced with competition.  In addition, the most obvious policy response to the "left behind" issue is to increase the availability of good educational options while shutting down bad ones.  The remaining fairness argument is that it is unfair to sort students based on parental choice (or lack thereof).  I disagree with this argument because I think it is impractical, ineffective, and inconsistent, but I can't reject it completely.  If we insist on this principle, I would suggest that we randomly assign students to all available school options. 

The most maddening aspect of the fairness argument is its frequent inconsistent application.  The vast majority of people that make this argument support the right of parents to send their kids to private school (if they can afford it) or to a selective magnet school (if their kids can pass the test).  In other words, if you are rich or have really smart kids you can sort yourself, but otherwise you can't.  My impression is that there is only a small minority that support complete, unqualified forced integration regardless of wealth, ability, or any other factor.  Again, if these people win the day, I would still hope that charter schools are allowed to compete. 

The final "creaming" issue involves funding.  Should schools that educate more difficult populations receive additional funding?  I don't have a strong opinion on this issue, but I think that charter schools should be treated consistently with traditional public schools.  I would note the following:

1. Bloomberg's "Fair Student Funding" effort will address this issue at traditional public schools by providing different amounts of funding to different "types" of students based on need.   

2. On the surface, charter schools receive less funding than traditional public schools.  I actually calculate the difference to be $12,400 versus $20,300.  However, some of this gap can be explained by different student populations.  In particular, we spend much more money on kids in special education schools.

3. Unfortunately, I don't think the DOE gives sufficient information to fully untangle the funding issue.  I am still working on this and would appreciate help!  In any case, I have never heard someone argue that charter schools in NYC receive more funding than traditional public schools even if one adjusts for student populations.

Creaming, Part 1

When I first heard the term "creaming", I assumed it was a malapropism for the term "skimming".  It turns out, though, "creaming" is the more common term used by educators when complaining that certain schools have an unfair advantage because they select a student population that is easier to educate than traditional public schools.  Recently, the "creaming" argument has been used to attack charter schools.  Currently, there is an entertaining debate going on at GothamSchools.org.   

I can think of three reasons that someone might be concerned with "creaming":

1. Analysis: The analysis of some schools as "better" than others might be unfairly biased by differences in student populations. 

2. Equity: It could be perceived by some as unfair that some schools have to deal with more difficult student populations than others.

3. Funding: It could be viewed by some as appropriate to provide additional funding to schools that have to serve more challenging student populations.

For each component of the creaming argument, we can address two issues: accuracy and consistency.  By "accuracy", I refer to the validity of the complaint.  By "consistency", I refer to the extent to which this complaint is applied consistently in a variety of settings.

With this framework, what can we say about the "creaming" accusations with respect to charter schools in New York City?

1. With respect to the accuracy of the analysis complaint, it is certainly possible that charter schools are educating different populations of students.  Of course, charter schools use lotteries to accept students. They are not allowed to use exams or any other measures typically used to differentiate students.  Therefore, any population difference would be based on either the efforts of charter operators to convince certain parents to apply or the independent tendency of a certain type of parent to apply.  For example, many people argue, I think fairly, that parents that select charter schools are probably more engaged in their child's education than those that don't.  To address these potential differences, the "gold standard" method of analysis is called "randomized assignment".  This technique controls for differences like parental involvement by tracking the difference of performance between students that get into charter schools versus those that apply to charter schools but "lose" the lottery.  A recent study by the Boston Foundation, for example, used this technique and determined that charter schools performed significantly better than traditional public schools.  Another study, still under way, is being conducted in NYC.  The first round of results showed that charter schools outperformed traditional public schools.  So early results seem to indicate that charter schools provide better results.  Let's continue to conduct these types of studies.

2. With respect to the consistency of the analysis complaint, the anti-charter movement has frequently pointed to unscientific studies that don't control at all for population differences in an effort to demonstrate that charter schools are no better than traditional public schools.  (Usually, even with these unscientific studies, they are unable to motivate that charter schools are worse than traditional public schools.)  They have sometimes been successful in getting the New York Times to publish these results with misleading headlines, e.g. here and here.  On the other hand, anti-charter people require the "gold standard" when all of the simpler statistics favor charters.  Then, when a "gold standard" test is conducted, they make believe it never happened.

Tomorrow, I will finish up by addressing the "equity" and "funding" components of the "creaming" debate.

The Green Dot Contract

There are some education reformers that, while they dislike the current UFT contract, are hopeful that a shorter, more flexible contract could work out fine.  The Green Dot charter schools, primarily in Los Angeles but with a new school in New York City, are viewed as a possible example in this direction.

The first Los Angeles Green Dot contract was effective through June 30, 2006.  It was 33 pages (versus the 165 pages of the UFT contract).  The second contract is effective until June 30, 2010.  It is 53 pages, a 60% increase in length.  At that rate, the Green Dot contract will converge with the UFT contract in about two more contract cycles.

The entire increase in length comes from the addition of 20 pages explaining the Green Dot Public Schools Teacher Evaluation System.  It is a two track system.  Track I is for newer teachers.  Track II is for more experienced teachers.  Track I requires exactly two formal teacher evaluations each year.  Track II teachers are evaluated once a year.  "Ten working days notice shall be given for a formal observation.  Formal observations shall be preceded by a pre-observation conference no less than three working days prior and followed by a post-observation conference within ten working days to review and sign the evaluation."   

What happens if, during a formal (black-tie?) observation, the school leader observes a problem?  "If during any teacher observation, an administrator determines that a teacher either does not meet or partially meets any of the standards defined by the California Standards for the Teaching Profession, a development plan may be created to help foster teacher growth."  Next steps? "If, after a minimum of 45 working days has been given for the teacher to improve as specified in the development plan, and there is no evident progress based on the areas of growth identified in the development plan, a 45 school day improvement plan shall be developed."

Luckily, there are no more plans after the development plan and improvement plan.  Since the Green Dot contract allows for exactly 193 days in the work year (which includes ten "pupil free days"), the absolute minimum time to terminate a teacher for poor performance is about half a school year. 

Teachers are paid based on grid that looks exactly like the UFT grid -- it only differentiates pay based on seniority and academic degrees.  Class assignments are made with agreement of the teachers and, if no agreement can be reached, are based on seniority.  Part-time hourly workers to, say, provide extra tutoring or to grade homework are prohibited.  

In short, the current Los Angeles Green Dot contract would require major changes for any of the great charter schools I have visited in New York City.  Meanwhile, the Green Dot school in the city still hasn't reached contract terms with the UFT.  I look forward to reading it. 

Another Great Charter School: Manhattan Charter School

Add Manhattan Charter School to the list of schools worth a visit.  The school is perhaps best known for its 100% pass rate on both the 3rd grade math and ELA exams last year, but, as usual, the most exciting things about the school must be seen in person.  Luckily, like all of the other great schools I have seen, MCS likes to have visitors.

MCS serves grades K through 4 and will be adding a 5th grade next year.  The earlier grades are staffed with two teachers per classroom and the older grades have an assistant teacher half the time.

The school is co-located with a traditional public school and a Head Start program in an unusual circular school building on the Lower East Side.  MCS occupies most of the upper floor and they have done a beautiful job with their space.  The classrooms and hallways are cheerful and peaceful.  The children seem happy and engaged.

MCS is very proud of its music, arts, and language education.  I observed some of the younger children in French class.  The kids get music instruction daily.  The art work around the school is quite impressive.  Overall, MCS seems to provide an unusually well-rounded education.

MCS has created this environment with very little philanthropic support -- they fund themselves almost entirely from the $12,400 per pupil payment they receive from the DOE.  How do they do this?  Amongst other things, they operate with only four non-teaching positions (including the principal).

If you work or live in downtown Manhattan and you can take an hour or two off from work, check this one out.  Stop by Girls Prep as well while you are at it...