Curious2

Test Your Knowledge: No Child Left Behind

Since you have had the entire holiday period to study the "No Child Left Behind Act of 2001", here is a little quiz.  For your convenience, this page contains a link to a pdf of the complete law along with an index.

1. About how many pages are in the "No Child Left Behind Act of 2001"?

a. 7
b. 70
c. 700
d. 7000

Answer:
(c).  670 to be exact.  Do you think the next version will be shorter or longer?

2. Which of the following is NOT part of NCLB?

a. Teaching of Traditional American History
b. Teacher Liability Protection
c. William F. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy Programs
d. Kenneth M. Hirsh  3 R's For a K Challenge Grant

Answer:
(d).  NCLB claims to focus on accountability, flexibility, and choice, but it also has room for hundreds of pages about things like this, this, and this. 

3. Which type of teacher is NOT formally defined in the text of NCLB?

a. Highly Qualified Teacher
b. Master Teacher
c. Exemplary Teacher
d. Crappy Teacher

Answer:

(d).  Don't be confused.  If you review this section, you will learn that "the term exemplary teacher means a teacher who ... is a highly qualified teacher such as a master teacher ...".  Understood?

4. Which of the following is NOT part of NCLB?

a. Excellence in Economic Education
b. Grants to Improve the Mental Health of Children
c. Educational, Cultural, Apprenticeship, and Exchange Programs for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Whaling and Trading Partners in Massachusetts
d. Grants to Introduce Public Choice Theory to Infants

Answer:

(d).  Sections like this, this, and this make me more comfortable that our children will be economically literate, mentally sound, and on good terms with their historical whaling and trading partners in Massachusetts.

Curious2 Supports Plan B

In a previous post, I bemoaned some of the steps that Michelle Rhee, my favorite chancellor, is taking in an effort to reform the Washington, D.C. public schools.  She is offering to pay salaries much higher than should be necessary to lure teachers away from an inflexible union contract that makes it impossible to remove ineffective instructors.  The union, chock full of ineffective teachers, is resisting.  This story discusses Plan B: restore the districts right to create nonunionized charter schools and seek federal legislation declaring the system to be in a "state of emergency" (for excessive crappiness) which would eliminate the need to bargain with the union.  Our hero will not be defeated!  I repeat my conclusion from the previous post: "I believe that Michelle Rhee will dramatically improve the traditional public schools, but unless she can convince teachers to start from scratch, her system will be less effective and much more expensive than the simple workings of the charter system."   

 

Performance Pay: On The Road To Another Fine Mess

How do you combine Education Reform with Big Government?  First, you find a situation in which inflexible rules are hurting performance.  Second, instead of simply eliminating the inflexible rules, you create additional rules (the more complex, the better) that attempt to cure the problems.  Repeat.  Throughout this process you will be victimized by special interest groups that bastardize the "reforms" while insisting on more money as a reward for their "compromises".  The end result will be a more expensive and more complicated system that continues to underperform a simple, less-regulated approach. 

For years, education reformers have complained that teachers generally have no incentive to "perform".  Thanks to productivity-destroying union contracts, they can't be fired and their pay only increases based on seniority.  One solution would be to allow parents to send their kids to schools that aren't subject to these contracts, e.g. charter schools.  Another solution would be to reform the contracts such that teachers can be fired for poor performance and school operators can pay teachers whatever they feel is appropriate, perhaps subject to a minimum wage set through collective bargaining. 

The Big Government solution, which we are experimenting with in NYC and might soon see nationally, is to create a new set of rules with the following properties:

1. All of the inflexible rules in the union contracts are still in effect. 
2. All of the teachers in a school get paid additional money if their students collectively do well on high-stakes tests.
3. Some teachers in the school can get paid even more money based on decisions made by a panel of teachers in the school.   

In other words, teachers are no more accountable than they were before, but they can get even more money if they can get their kids to do well on already-controversial high-stakes tests.  The only certain thing with respect to this new plan: we will spend more money on traditional public education.  Surprised?

Interestingly, in the charter world, where operators are free to pay teachers as they see fit, "performance pay" is not the norm.  Many operators find that differentiating pay based on performance creates more morale problems than it is worth.  Instead, they fire teachers that aren't getting the job done.

Cars and Schools: Same Situation, Different Timing

The Big 3 car companies and traditional public schools are suffering from the same problem: they are burdened with productivity-destroying union contracts while they struggle to compete against non-unionized alternatives.  The Big 3 struggle, of course, is in a much more advanced stage.  Since they were unsuccessful in stopping free trade and the establishment of foreign competitors on US soil, consumers have had choices for decades.  As a result, their market share has decreased year after year.  The union-dominated traditional public schools have been more successful in preventing competition.  The charter school movement, though, is changing that dynamic.  The basic results should be the same: unless the unions allow for much more flexible labor agreements or force the government to prevent charter school growth, they will lose market share each year until they face extinction.  Think "charter schools" instead of "foreign auto makers" in this excellent article and see if any of the dynamics sound familiar. 

The Benefits of Too Many Teachers

In an earlier post, I discussed the curious fact that there is an oversupply of teachers in NYC.  This past weekend, on a panel at a Teach For America alumni summit, Vicki Bernstein, the Executive Director of Teacher Recruitment and Quality for the New York City Department of Education, confirmed this fact.  She pointed out the upside of the situation: the DOE can be more selective in future teacher placements.  This is great news, but unfortunately it will only apply to the small number of new open positions.  Imagine if NYC could actually get rid of ineffective teachers and replace them with the most promising new candidates.  The exciting evolution of public school education would become a revolution.

Meanwhile, Wendy Kopp, the world-changing founder of TFA, announced that new teacher applications for this year are up 50% (yes, 50%) over last year.  Where will they put all of those talented young teachers? 

Office of Salary Services

While New York City's 78 charter schools can have 78 different approaches to teacher pay, the traditional public schools follow this fascinating chart available from the Office of Salary Services.  Down the left side of the chart is listed the number of years taught.  Across the top of the chart is listed the amount of education school coursework completed.  In other words, the two ways to increase your pay are:

1. Accumulate experience as measured by the number of years taught.

2. Accumulate course credits and degrees at an accredited school of education.

Unfortunately, numerous academic studies suggest that:

1. Teacher performance may improve over the first two or, maybe, three years of experience.  After that, performance does not seem to improve.

2. Education courses and degrees have no effect on teacher performance.

Given these facts, the numbers on the chart are a big factor in the poor performance of some of our traditional public schools:

1. Notice how slowly and slightly salaries increase for newer teachers.  Between years two and three, for example, salaries go up by $400.  Recall that these are years in which teachers are becoming significantly more effective.  Meanwhile, teachers that have 20 years of longevity earn $8,600 more than teachers with 18 years despite no evidence that these additional two years affect performance.

2. Maxing out on ed school studies is worth $12,000 a year despite no evidence of any effect on teacher performance.

All told, a teacher with 22 years of experience, a masters degree, and 30 additional credits gets paid about twice a teacher with 5 years of experience and no advanced degree.  So a school can afford to hire two 5-year teachers for the price of one 22-year teacher regardless of teacher effectiveness.  Is it surprising that charter schools can outperform traditional public schools for less money? 

A Contract is a Contract

In the midst of a historic economic downturn, New York's Democratic Governor, David Paterson, announced today that he wants the largest public sector union to reopen their contracts and waive a 3 percent pay raise scheduled for 2009.  Daniel Donohue, president of the Civil Service Employees Association, responded in writing "The governor knows, or should know, that reopening contracts is not acceptable.  Any serious businessperson knows that a contract is a contract."  Mr. Donohue may learn that union contracts can be set aside in bankruptcy court, but, in general, he is correct: a contract is a contract, regardless of how ridiculous it might seem. 

Which brings us to the latest adventures of Michelle Rhee, the hugely talented and dedicated chancellor of the Washington, D.C. public schools.  Rhee wants to change the teacher contract to make it  possible to fire bad teachers.  To convince teachers to agree, Rhee proposes raising salaries enormously, e.g. top teachers would get a salary of $130,000.  Rhee can afford this because in addition to her astronomical budget of $24,600 per pupil, she has access to a philanthropic grant of $375 million to lure teachers away from tenure.  Of course, one can't lure the ineffective teachers with a raise if they expect they will be fired shortly thereafter.  And, by all reports, there are many ineffective teachers in the system.  Perhaps to deal with this negotiating challenge, Rhee's plan has that Rube Goldberg feel so common to union contracts, with a "red" plan, a "green" plan, bumping, buyouts, seniority, etc. 

Meanwhile, 30% of the public school students in D.C. now attend public charter schools.  Charter schools are independently operated and, generally, not unionized.  There are no red plans, green plans, bumping, buyouts, seniority, or tenure. The per-pupil funding is $11,154.  Despite the huge funding gap, each of the past several years, more and more D.C. parents are opting for this alternative.  The parents are more satisfied and the schools are out-performing.  I believe that Michelle Rhee will dramatically improve the traditional public schools, but unless she can convince teachers to start from scratch, her system will be less effective and much more expensive than the simple workings of the charter system.  After all, a contract is a contract.

Let Me Get This Straight...

An article in the NY Times today introduces its protagonist in the first sentence:  "Even by the standards of upstate New York... these have been rough times for Kathleen Regan."  Towards the end of the article we get the details on the tough times Ms. Regan is facing:

"Ms. Regan, the schoolteacher, said she had never felt so financially pinched as over the past two years.  Ms. Regan said that she and her husband had to take their three sons out of private school.  Then Ms. Regan, who taught at the same private school, quit so she could find a higher-paying job at a public school."

In other words:

1. Having to send your kids to a public school in Syracuse is a reportable hardship.

2. Despite this hardship, one gets paid more to teach at such an institution.

The article is about the difficult decisions the Governor of New York is facing to close a massive budget gap in a state that is having severe economic problems.  Here's a plan:

1. Give Ms. Regan a school voucher so she can keep her children in private school.

2. Since the voucher amount will be less than the cost of educating her kids in the public schools, use the saved money to help to plug the state budget hole.

3. Ms. Regan's kids will be in the school she prefers.  Ms. Regan will teach in the school she prefers.  The state budget will be in better shape.

Read the article to see Ms. Regan's alternative solution.   

School Choice, Presidential Edition

Where will the Obamas send their girls, ages 9 and 6, to school?  Michelle Obama has been visiting well-known private schools like Georgetown Day School and Sidwell Friends.  Meanwhile, D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee is pitching the District public schools.  My bet is on a private school, since I have read that the Obamas love their children.  Just kidding. 

If they select a private school, school voucher proponents will point out the apparent hypocrisy of our anti-voucher president sending his kids to a private school.  To defend themselves, anti-voucher private school parents argue that while tax dollars should be spent only on our vital public school system, they should be free to choose private schools if they can afford it.  The weak link in this reasoning is explaining why the public system is so important for other peoples' children but not their own.  I haven't heard this point defended well, although there have been some humorous attempts. 

Perhaps the most remarkable element of this issue is the relative costs of the public and private alternatives.  The per-pupil taxpayer-funded cost of a D.C. public school is now about $24,600.  Georgetown Day School charges just under $28,000.  Sidwell Friends charges about $28,400.  In other words, if D.C. spends 15% more per pupil, they will have matched the cost of some of the most prestigious private schools in the country.  The Spending Gap problem would be solved until the inevitable argument that we should be spending more on poor kids than rich ones.  Then, if we completely voucher-ize the D.C. system, all parents could afford Sidwell, whose motto, Eluceat Omnibus Lux ("Let the light shine out from all"), might finally be realized.

NYC Schools: Under-crowded?

Given the frequent complaints that NYC public schools suffer from overcrowding, it's surprising that nearly half of the city's new high schools failed to meet their enrollment targets this year, several by large margins. I have heard similarly surprising stories in the past:

1. A top Department of Education insider told me that the overcrowded schools are usually the very best traditional public schools and they are overcrowded because parents avoid the half-empty failing schools nearby.  In other words, the problem isn't always too little space, but rather a large quality gap between good and bad schools that leads to overcrowding of the good schools.

2. A charter school operator told me that there was room for a few thousand additional students in his neighborhood.  Poorly performing schools fight reallocation of this space to protect their jobs and to use it for things like teacher lounges and private offices.

3. Several successful charter operators are spending millions of philanthropic dollars to build new school houses to meet excess student demand even though there are nearby underutilized spaces being occupied by mediocre or failing schools.

Leonie Haimson, director of Class Size Matters, gives one solution:

"This is really a problem in the way they are allocating students to schools... If there are small schools that aren't getting their full share of kids, they should be assigning kids to them - just as they do with the large schools." 

Ms. Haimson favors the solution of assigning kids to schools (against their parents' will?) to deal with the embarrassing excess space problem .  In her language, schools should get "their full share of kids".  I think she has it backwards:  a better solution would be to allocate space to schools that parents want to send their kids to, i.e. giving kids "their full share of space".