An August/September dialogue between some respected members of the reform community and me on Mike Petrilli’s Where Education Reform Goes From Here https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/where-education-reform-goes-here and, Sandy Kress’s and Peter Cunningham’s comments. I found much to support in Mike’s piece although there are still a few areas of disagreement or emphasis needing further discussion.
To M. Petrilli, S.Kress, and P. Cunningham,
Based on your collective comments, I think there is a good
chance for reconciliation and a working consensus between “reformers” and those
of us who have had major problems with reform policies, implementation, and
assumptions. There seems to be a common emphasis on the following approaches to
improving student and school performance:
- the
centrality of curriculum and instruction;
- high-quality
materials;
- building
the processes schools and districts (or CMO’s) for school improvement such as
improving the capacity at each school for continuous improvement;
- attracting
higher caliber teachers, improved induction, career ladders and leadership, and
a continued attention to improving performance for all;
- alternate
pathways for high-school graduation to include career/tech and CTE;
- increased
funding;
- striking
a balance between school and local control and district and state expectations
and support;
- avoiding
the harsher anti-public school and teacher rhetoric; and
- looking
to both traditional public school and charter for models of high performance.
These ideas also drove our efforts in California to improve
performance. For those who are interested, I’ve attached a short paper (found
below) on that subject.
Your willingness to be honest about problems with the reform
movement and your display of a sincere attempt to find common ground is to be
commended. Both charters and traditional public schools need to improve and
there is a growing agreement on what that takes.
Here are some specific comments on the points which have
been raised—points of agreement and areas needing further discussion because of
disagreements or differences in emphasis.
- Thank
you, Michael Petrilli, for adding preparing students for democracy to the
purposes driving any improvement efforts. There is a growing interest in civics
and civic engagement in the country and excellent exemplars by both charters
(Democracy Prep) and traditional public school efforts now exist.
My only caveat is to add one more
important purpose of education: the classic goal of a liberal education to help
enrich each student’s life, reach individual potential, and develop character
and a high moral stance. You do mention in passing literature, history, and the
humanities as helping to find out how the world works and a glancing reference
to character development in the service of citizenship. Yet, I think this goal
of broadening individual perspectives to lead a more fulfilling life should be
explicitly expressed. For a discussion of this point see http://www.buildingbetterschools.com/the-three-goals-of-public-education/
- Kudos
on promoting broadening the job preparation goal to include alternative
rigorous CTE pathways for those students not bound for a 4 year college. For a
school, district, or state, the preparation for work goal should be to maximize
the number of students prepared for a 4yr college or a transfer pathway, and
all others prepared for a specific career or tech/prep strand. Presently, the
country is preparing about 40% for 4yr colleges. Even if we increase that to
50% (a formidable goal) that still leaves a large number of students not
served. Most current policy at state and district levels basically ignores
these students and assumes almost all can and should be prepared for a 4yr
college.
I do agree with those who are wary
of an early placement test because of the danger of a premature choice as we
should give some students the chance to change perspectives in later grades. As
one alternative, schools in San Diego Unified have a Linked Learning college
(A-G UC requirements) program combined with a career path in which students who
follow the career path early on are able to shift to the 4yr college track at a
later time.
- Many
of your comments on literacy are spot on. The importance of early foundation
skills and then content and vocabulary as the major driver of improving
comprehension as opposed to over-emphasis on “comprehension skills”. One of the
major deficiencies of annual statewide literacy tests is the lack of connection
to content and the resulting default to comprehension strategies.
Louisiana is attempting to correct this situation.
- From
our perspective, too many reformers are still too wedded to a strict
accountability model based on a faulty theory of change. The initial reform
paradigm was a simple structural leverage approach: define student
performance standards (mainly for accountability purposes not to inform
instructional improvement), assess whether the standards were being met,
publicize those outcomes, and provide consequences for results bad (and good),
get out of the way of individual schools, and let pressure from harsh
consequences and competition especially from charters and parents force
improvement.
This strategy proved to be flawed
in several respects and thus didn’t produce the results hoped for.
First, it is highly simplistic. The
assumption that individual schools if given freedom from district control and
spurred by competition and consequences would figure out how to improve on
their own proved false for most schools. Many of you now realize that the
missing ingredient in that paradigm was neglect of direct attention to and
support of the nuts and bolts of school improvement—curriculum, instructional
materials, professional development, team building, principal and teacher
leadership, effective district (or CMO) assistance and help with getting these
elements to cohere, and proper funding of these efforts. (appreciation to Peter
Cunningham for asserting the importance of funding if improvement is to occur.)
By comparison, the indirect method of attempting to improve performance by
standards, primarily test based assessment, and consequential accountability
turned out to be a much weaker way to influence school performance and produced
considerable collateral damage.
Another erroneous assumption
underlying this simple reform paradigm assumed educators would not improve
unless compelled or pressured by fear of consequences or competition. Actually,
most educators want to improve but many did not know how, did not receive
proper support, or were subject to leaders who were motivated by a test and
punish philosophy relying on fear instead of the more engaging build and support
approach. Appealing to teachers as professionals and engaging them in the
improvement work produces results; pressuring them often backfires. Deming and
Drucker still apply.
Yet, many of you want to retain or
strengthen accountability with consequences and embed the more direct approach
in high-stakes accountability. The two strategies conflict since they stem from
two radically different theories of how to encourage professionals to improve.
More often than not, pressure and competition detracts from high performance.
High-stakes testing encourages schools or districts to become too fixated on
test results and test items, to the detriment of deep learning and learning
progressions. Campbell’s law is relevant; consequential accountability
encourages educators to game the system, outright cheat, or become detached
from commitment to deeper learning and long-term continuous improvement by
concentrating on short term test results. Some reformers retort that teaching
to the test and test prep are fine if complex skills are tested. But the tests
don’t meet that standard. Dan Koretz’s, the Testing Charade or Jim
Popham’s work exemplifies the problems with focusing on standardized test
results which are not of a fine enough grain size to help instruction.
As an example, tests don’t reflect
the emerging idea of the importance of learning progressions such as the
development of proportional thinking in mathematics. These should be driving
curriculum, instruction, classroom student assessment and personalization. For
a free curriculum developed by Bill McCallum (one of the authors of Common Core
Math and his team for 6-8 math based on learning progressions with a top rating
from EdReports see the recently released excellent Illustrative Mathematics https://im.openupresources.org/ .
Many of you have advocated for a more personalized, adaptive instruction. One
impediment was the Dept. of Ed’s original refusal to allow SBAC to develop an
adaptive test on broader strands across grades so students could adjust to
higher or lower positions on these broader learning progressions. They insisted
that the tests be limited to the standards of a particular grade.
Annual test results are a useful
warning light and offer useful information about subgroups, but a whole array
of formative evaluations and using instructional tasks as assessments and
teacher and student judgements are necessary to focus on what is needed to
improve student performance. All too often assessment from the annual
test drives instruction in superficial and shallow ways, instead of being one
tool in the service of deeper learning. Many charters (and traditional public
schools), which live and die by annual test results, have become test prep
machines, narrowing the curriculum and harming student’s future performance.
Also problematical is the tendency for some charter schools to trumpet bogus
results by such ploys as not backfilling open slots over time and creating a
rarified cohort. Competition and fear of consequences has similarly
infected many traditional public schools with the same disease including
outright cheating or fiddling with who takes the test.
Finally, radical decentralization
did not produce the results as advertised. The theory was based in part by the
idea that districts were a main part of the problem of low performance. They
were either consumed by politics, stakeholder resistance, and bureaucratic
inefficiencies. Districts were thought to be ineffective as top down compliance
oriented, or incapable of or not interested in improving results but in
protecting turf. They couldn’t or wouldn’t change. Decentralizing to individual
schools, preferably charters, however, did not solve the problem of district
effectiveness or individual schools and teachers needing support.
Districts (or the central support structure in CMO’s) turn out to be crucial
players in improving schools. Instead of end-running them, efforts should be
made to improve their performance modeled after what our best districts have
done. Contrary to the argument that districts were incapable of change, there
are a growing number of districts in this country which have significantly
improved their ability to support school improvement
Districts such as Long Beach (which
only has a handful of charters), Garden Grove, Elk Grove, and Sanger in
California and comparable districts in the US were able to engender school-site
improvement by re-orienting their management philosophy. They made the
difficult shift from compliance orientation to support and engagement, but
still insisted on high expectations which if not met initiated discussions on
how to improve. They placed a solid curriculum and effective classroom
instruction at the center of improvement efforts and built a supportive structure
and processes to facilitate instructional improvement with impressive results.
That strategy should guide improvement policies. Instead of giving up on
districts, we should agree on and support approaches and polices geared to help
the laggards improve.
- Bravo
to your suggestions that teacher quality and teaching is not the only
determinant of high student performance. Curriculum, good materials, support
processes, money and community efforts are all also crucial. While reformers
are now stressing the importance of curriculum and instruction, they and many
traditional school leaders have not thought deeply enough about the complex
school processes necessary to improve classroom instruction. Michael alludes to
“professional development” but an effective improvement strategy is much more
complex than that. Educators and policy makers need to concentrate on how to
develop coherence among coaching, professional development, team building, use
of instructional materials, a broad array of classroom formative assessment
techniques, teacher and principal leadership, support for struggling students,
and what districts must do to support those efforts. I will send more specifics
on this issue in a future email.
- It
is also gratifying to see many pro-public school reformers become
sensitive to and willing to oppose privatization forces high-jacking their
rhetoric to drastically cut funding for public schools, seek to replace them,
or use the reform movement to squelch teacher unions as has happened in many
Republican led states or at the national level. Most of you now resist the
canard that the choice is between reformers policies favoring students or the
status quo favoring adult and union interests. Both pro-public education
reformers and the anti-reform camp want to improve the quality of our schools,
the debate is over which policies or strategies are best to accomplish that
goal.
- Many
of us agree with many of your proposals to concentrate more on the front end of
the teacher pipeline. Suggestions to increase the quality of new teachers by
higher entry standards for preparation programs, strengthening teacher
ed., lengthening the initial time for granting tenure with streamlined due
process protections as part of career ladder progressions are welcome.
For existing teachers, many of you
have criticized the almost exclusive reform emphasis on firing the worst
teachers by test-based and intricate principal evaluations. The effort was not
only ruined by the use of faulty assessments and processes but the policy
detracted from more positive efforts to raise the performance of all staff.
Moreover, concentrating on the worst often neglected supporting the best
through such approaches as embedding the most effective teachers in a learning
community and expanding their influence
Rewarding excellent teachers with
more cash has not worked and has caused collateral damage by lowering morale
and jeopardizing team building. There is a simple way out of this. Pay the best
teachers more but have them take on additional supportive roles. Career ladders
and teacher leadership positions need to become much more prevalent as some of
you have argued. Convincing a top teacher to stay in the profession has much
more dramatic effect on student and school performance than firing a laggard.
That’s not to say that the worst
teachers should not be fired or counseled out. There are some excellent
examples of effective teacher evaluation strategies such as those in San Jose
Unified or San Juan Unified in California where teachers have helped design and
implement the programs. When there is teacher buy-in and evaluation is embedded
in a comprehensive school improvement effort and the participation of teacher
leaders at the school, the rates of dismissal or resignations of the weaker teachers
is actually higher. Incompetent teachers can’t hide in group efforts—those who
can improve do so and many just resign. Conversely, having principals spend an
inordinate amount of time and paperwork conducting multiple classroom visits of
every teacher for purposes of formal evaluation severely hampers their more
productive role of organizing a learning school. Even the best teachers are
willing to accept improvement advice as part of a collaborative improvement
effort, but tend to shut down, narrow their teaching, or resist when it is part
of a formal evaluation process especially from one whom they don’t believe is
more skilled than they are.
There are many more issues which could be discussed, but I
hope that this commentary helps illuminate areas of agreement, areas needing
further discussion, and areas that are still in dispute. In addition to a
follow-up comment on comprehensive and coherent strategies to improve classroom
instruction, I’ll also send out some thoughts on agreements and disagreements
about charters.
Second comment by Bill Honig to Mike Petrilli.
A
Comprehensive and Coherent Approach to Improve Schools
It is nearly impossible for schools
and teachers to effectively teach the ambitious and active curriculum and
instructional shifts envisioned by common core and its cousins if teachers are
isolated in schools and not members of effective school teams. Getting good at
questioning, conducting discussions and simulations, supporting student teams,
and incorporating a fair bit of student projects takes time, expertise,
and work. Of course, teachers must make individual efforts and receive support
to improve their craft. But, even more important, schools need to become
cooperative learning institutions which are continuously getting better at
getting better. Our best practitioners, educational leaders, and researchers
are beginning to address coherence issues and what can states or districts do
to encourage a comprehensive approach centered on instructional improvement.
Yet this crucial element of
improvement strategies–the potential power of the school-site team focused on
instructional improvement–has been under-emphasized by many reformers. That is
changing in many charter organizations and traditional public schools where
professional learning communities have become wide-spread. John Hattie’s
book Visible Learning reviewed thousands of interventions and
found those with the highest effect size (more than a standard deviation or 1-2
years additional student growth) were effective programs aimed at
teacher efficacy, engagement, building teams, as well as involving students in
the improvement process. (Hattie found that charter schools, teacher
evaluation, and merit pay strategies all resulted in minimal effects many
multiples lower than these high pay-off engagement activities.) Organizations
such as LearningForward, the Learning Policy Institute, SERP,
and the Center for Innovation and Education and advocates such as Linda
Darling-Hammond and Marc Tucker have been emphasizing this approach based on
what the most productive schools organizations world-wide are doing.
Unfortunately, at present only a
small percentage of school-site teams are effective by being highly-focused on
instruction and are bolstered by teachers displaying a willingness to change
classroom behavior. Further, not many schools and districts pursue a
coherent approach. Making teams productive by being part of a more
comprehensive strategy is essential but complex. Educators and researchers are
just beginning to appreciate these next necessary steps in school improvement
(Implementation 2.0).
Moreover, developing state and
district policies to promote coherence is in its infancy. Many traditional
school district leaders still follow the dubious approach of heavy reliance on
test-based accountability by top-down pressure, are hampered by bureaucratic
inertia and politics, adopt single-shot strategies, or are not willing to shift
management philosophy and organization to a more balanced approach. Many
charters follow a simplistic model of instruction, philosophy, or management
which relies on churning through lower-paid new teachers and neglects long-term
team-building. Some are under the control of martinets, or have terrible
working conditions for staff and suffer extremely high attrition rates and low
morale.
To their credit some CMO’s and
individual charters have identified deficiencies, shallow learning, or
excessive attention to test prep and have undertaken corrective action. For
example, some have recognized the problems of a harsh “no excuse” approach and
became more supportive of students and staff; others such as the Kipp
organization have found problems of performance by their graduates in college
and revamped their programs.
For an excellent example of what
needs to happen at schools and districts or CMO’s) with supportive state
policies see Paul Cobb et al.’s book, Systems for Instructional Improvement.
This book is a must read for what it actually takes to improve instruction at
the school and district level and where things go wrong. It also includes the
latest research on these issues and suggests further avenues of investigation.
Even though the context is middle grade math using a more constructivist math
program, the lessons learned apply to any proposed strategy for improvement or
use of materials. Cobb’s conclusions are supported by findings from a large
number of improvement initiatives such as the Math in Common folks (a large,
foundation funded math improvement effort in California) and many of our most
insightful researchers.
THOUGHTS ON CHARTERS
There still seems to be a strong
commitment by reformers to charters as a major and necessary component of
improvement efforts. There are some excellent charters (my favorites in
California are the Aspire network and High Tech High). Charters should be an
important element in school improvement efforts—as centers of energy for
ambitious practitioners, as lighthouses for innovation, and as providing
parents with more choices. Yet, they are not a panacea capable of
single-handedly improving or replacing traditional public school and often
become the exclusive recipient of reform fervor to the detriment of other
essential strategies. On the whole they do no better than traditional public
schools and even when some subset performs better, the effect size is
minuscule.
I appreciate the statements by some
of you supporting stronger accountability for charters—transparency,
prohibitions against self-dealing, and even eliminating for-profits as is
evident in Marshall Tuck’s (a reform candidate for California State
Superintendent) platform. A steady stream of embezzlement and self-enrichment
stories cannot be good for the charter movement.
One continuing area of contention
is whether or how much districts and the state can take into account the
financial burden on a district of extensive charter expansion. It may be that
charters receive less money from the state than traditional public school
students (there is conflicting research on that issue) but, whatever they
receive, at some point the financial pressure on districts harms the education
of the remaining students. Additionally, the closing of schools to be replaced
by charters doesn’t necessarily improve student performance, but does cause
considerable collateral damage to the community and families.
Another contentious issue is some
members of the reform community’s recent emphasis on choice as the primary
value in educational policy (now that is clear that performance doesn’t favor
charters). Parental choice should be one element in designing policy, but so is
society’s interest in citizenship, scientific understanding, and the health of
traditional public schools (which educate 90% of our students). As important is
the public interest in giving each student the choice in how they are going to
live their lives by offering them a broad course of study to expand their
perspectives regardless of a more restrictive view of their parents (such as
anti-evolution, anti-democratic values, or anti-vaccination views).
Moreover, one choice available to
parents should be enhancing their local school. Most parents, even in
low-performing schools like their local school as an important community asset,
and want the choice of improving that school and not being forced to apply to a
charter. Many charter advocates focus on parents who want to leave but ignore
the needs of parents who want to stay. Finally, there are many ways of
enhancing parent and student choice—magnet schools, schools within schools,
etc. In Los Angeles Unified, for example, magnet schools substantially
outperform charters. A fair policy should seek compromises in these various and
often conflicting points of view.
A final area of dispute is the
efficacy of recovery districts or a massive shift to charters and vouchers.
Some of you now agree that the alternative approach of achievement districts or
state takeovers converting low-performing schools to charters such as the one
in Tennessee has not been successful. Other highly touted experiments such as
the Recovery District in New Orleans remain contested (overall test score
growth on one hand but a two-tiered system with low and declining performance
at segregated schools and community disruption and lack of involvement in
schools on the other) and the heavy investment in charters and vouchers in
Milwaukee or Michigan has been a bust.
At any rate, it is gratifying to
see a willingness of the reform folks to look at both excellent charters and
excellent traditional schools as exemplars of quality. One of the most galling
attitudes of many reformers was a tendency to only use excellent charters as
exemplars (regrettably, sometimes using bogus examples) and neglect the large
number of excellent traditional public schools, districts, or states who
exhibit the same qualities. Both types should be exemplars for the rest.
From: Michael Petrilli
[mailto:mpetrilli@edexcellence.net]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 8:40 AM
To: Bill Honig; Brandon Wright; Chester E. Finn, Jr; Robert Pondiscio
Subject: Re: FW: RE: New from Fordham: Where Education Reform Goes from
Here
Very
well said Bill. Can we post this on our blog? With some edits for style and
such?
Keep
in mind that reformers, in general, sit “outside” the system. As
such, we don’t know how to compel, or even encourage, the kind of good work
that you describe happening inside the system, in a few places. I can’t even
figure out how to make it happen in my own kids’ school! So then what? For
every Elk Grove and Long Beach there are a 100 complacent districts, it seems
to me. That’s the rub.
On
Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Bill Honig <billhonig@comcast.net>
wrote:
Mike, thanks for the kind comments. You can post this and
edit it. I’m not sure that most of the 100 districts are really complacent and
not able or willing to change given the right conditions. Most want to do
better but are hampered by the wrong philosophy, management style, or lack of
know-how. The new Gates project is attempting to put them in networks devoted
to improvement and improvement science. We also need some deep thought on what
states (or someday at the national level) can do from a policy perspective to
help push them in the right direction. To the extent that policy people across
the board and key educational leaders legitimize the comprehensive and coherent
point of view I described we will attract more converts. I am sending you and
the group a short, more detailed statement on what needs to be done which you
probably will like. I am also going to send out a short statement on charters
which will may be more controversial . Both are additionally listed below. Bill
Mike
From: Michael Petrilli
[mailto:mpetrilli@edexcellence.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 5:40 AM
To: Bill Honig
Subject: Re: FW: RE: New from Fordham: Where Education Reform Goes from
Here
Thanks
Bill. I do like the idea of focusing more on winning converts.
For
what it’s worth, I think some of your statements on charters are now out of
date. The evidence is very strong that urban charters–which are the majority
of them–outperform their district counterparts, and are getting better over
time.
But
I’d love to read more articles with strong evidence about traditional districts
that are improving rapidly and getting great results. So keep em coming!
Mike
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Bill Honig <billhonig@comcast.net>
wrote:
Mike, I know you are on vacation but if you get a chance
please give me a call at 415-383-8690 or let me know of a convenient time and
number to call you to discuss what is below.
I think I’m more optimistic than you about the chances
that most districts can or will adopt the right improvement strategies. If we
can agree that one of the most powerful ways to engender change in district and
practitioner efficacy is to legitimize and promulgate the most effective
models of management and strategic thinking until they become standard
operating procedure, then many more schools and districts will improve. A broad
consensus on the model would help, as many district leaders, board member and
teachers have been subject to conflicting views of how to proceed.
Thus many practitioners are given an excuse not to change, adopt a
counter-productive philosophy, or are too confused to fight bureaucratic
inertia.
Here is an outline of a proposed model which takes into
account the many initiatives in your comments and my response and organizes
them to clarify the focus of each strategy. For a full explication of this
point of view see www.buildingbetterschools.com
and especially look at the How Top Performers Build-and-Support section.
The key is to make improving classroom instruction the
primary objective of reform efforts. Classroom instruction covers the
interaction of teachers and students in the classroom which includes such areas
as;
· teaching
a quality liberal arts curriculum and the pedagogical knowledge of how students
learn and do not learn that discipline:
· use
of quality instructional materials including a balanced use of technology;
· classroom
management and student engagement;
· the
effective use of on-going formative assessment which involve students in the
process;
· use
of deep learning techniques such as how to lead a discussion and incorporate
questions, simulations and projects into instruction;
· balancing
whole class instruction with individual and group work.
Other levels of support then focus on supporting those
below them and operate in coherence with of all other major initiatives
consistent with the overall goal of improving classroom instruction. Each
initiative should view themselves as part of a larger strategic approach to
building capacity to improve:
· It
helps to think of this model as four concentric circles with teacher/student
interaction in the classroom in the center;
· the
first circle around the classroom includes all the school leverage points which
could and should influence the quality of classroom instruction such as
the quality and best use of the curriculum and instructional materials,
individual professional development, coaching, building teams that continuously
address helping teachers become better at their craft and addressing problems
in classrooms and the school, attention to equity issues, creating an engaging
atmosphere in the school, effective discipline policies, principal and teacher
supportive leadership, an accountability system which collects and uses useful
data, involvement of parents, and connections to community supports. How to get
all these efforts to cohere and be part of a strategic school improvement plan
should be a major component of school improvement efforts in the country.
· the
second ring contains all the efforts by districts (or CMOs) and local school
boards to support the school efforts and processes of improvement by developing
a coherent improvement strategy at the district. This strategy should
include such topics as funding improvement efforts to provide time for
school collaboration, selecting a quality curriculum and instructional
materials, developing a coherent message from the various line, staff, and
special support departments, selection and support of principals capable of
building capacity and learning teams, creating appropriate pathways for all
students, developing accountability systems that feedback useful information to
the schools and encourage schools to develop a coherent improvement approach,
dealing with struggling and advanced students, shifting from a compliance
management style and organization to a support philosophy, a robust human
resource effort including connections with the university pipeline of teachers,
induction, career ladders, and the development of school site teacher leadership,
and involvement of parents and the community.
· the
third ring includes outside providers of direct support for districts and
CMO’s (some also provide direct service to teachers and schools) in how the
district can best produce and implement a coherent, strategic approach to
improvement centered on assisting their local school efforts for positive
change. Examples of these providers are county and state educational entities,
university initiatives and subject matter projects, district networks and
collaboratives, professional development and district improvement providers,
and direct services by union, administrator, board member, parent-teacher
organizations. One goal of these providers should be to curated information
about best practices to salt discussions at schools and districts so that
practitioners don’t have to reinvent the wheel; and finally,
· the
fourth ring includes those organizations influencing policy and the
intellectual climate such as state legislatures, governors, and state boards of
education, national policy efforts, the research community, think tanks,
advocacy groups, and bloggers. State and national governmental entities can
provide policies consistent with a strategic build and support approach. The
latter four provide information and best practice ideas consistent with that
approach.
One goal is to get a critical mass of these large number
of players at the different levels to adopt a similar build and support
message, use best practices appropriate to their level and mission to help
those below their circle. They should see themselves as part of a coherent,
broader strategy and their efforts should mutually reinforce and be consistent
with other initiatives and leverage points. We need some intensive attention
on how best to do all this starting with a broad understanding of how the most
effective districts, schools, states, and countries have undertaken successful
improvement.
What do you think?
As to your point about recent research on charters. The
latest CREDO report does find that urban charters do better than the average
traditional public school but the effect size is tiny overall. What it does
show is that for some urban charters the effect size is strong (while for other
urban charters the effect size is negative). However, there are urban districts
such as Long Beach with less than a handful of charters that also do well. Both
the high-performing urban charters and the high performing districts should
become models for everyone else. It shouldn’t be charter versus traditional
public school, but every school and district should be on an improvement
trajectory and the exemplars from both sectors should help them in that task.
Bill
From: Michael Petrilli [mailto:mpetrilli@edexcellence.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2018 8:28 AM
To: Bill Honig; jmurray@edexcellence.net
Subject: Re: FW: RE: New from Fordham: Where Education Reform Goes from
Here
Well said Bill. The challenge is when school districts show
no interest in rings 1 and 2, or just go through the motions…
Happy to find a time to talk. Jeff can help.
Mike
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF
THE CALIFORNIA APPROACH May
2018
I am writing as a member of a wide-spread group in
California which has resisted the harsher anti-public school and anti-teacher
rhetoric of the reform movement as well as many of the major reform specifics
such as test-based teacher evaluation, punitive high-stakes accountability based
primarily on test results, and an undue focus on the lowest performing schools
and teachers at the expense of broader improvement efforts. While the state has
a robust charter sphere, we have attempted to avoid advocating large-scale
charter expansion as a main driver of school improvement. We also are about to
address strengthening charter accountability, transparency, and protections
against self-dealing. Many of you have recently made similar arguments in most
of these areas.
The state’s approach has instead been to emphasize a more
positive, engaging, supportive approach. For an extended argument consistent
with some of your conclusions about the deficiencies in conventional reform
policies, how these efforts actually influenced teachers, schools, communities,
and districts and their results, unpacking flawed assumptions, and presenting the research supporting these
ideas see www.buildingbetterschools.com
and a monthly compendium of more recent articles http://www.buildingbetterschools.com/forum/.
The site also lays out a more positive agenda used by California based on the
experience of the highest-performing districts, schools, states, and other
countries. I have attached a brief summary of the California approach to this
email.
Did these strategies work in California? One positive indication
is provided by the large increases in the state’s NAEP results. If you look at
NAEP 8th and 4th grade reading and math average score
growth for 2009-2017 (the base year is just before Common Core was adopted in
the state and the Brown administration took over) California posted top growthscores nationally for 8th
grade reading (1st in the nation and now only 2 points below the
national average), 4th grade reading (tied for 2nd), 8th
grade math (tied for 2nd) compared to much flatter growth in many
states. Growth was weaker for 4th grade math and a cause for concern
and effort. (See the attachment for details) The gains are more impressive
given that California has the most second language students, the most
diversity, and high levels of low income students. This is not to say much more
work needs to be done–the state still lags in performance levels.
The essential elements of the California approach are:
- wide spread agreement on the importance of a
more ambitious, engaging broad liberal arts curriculum, the development of the
California frameworks (translating standards into specifications for curriculum
and instruction) explicating common core reading and math, history/civics, and
NGSS standards, wide spread agreement on the importance of a more ambitious,
engaging broad liberal arts curriculum, the development of the California
frameworks (translating standards into specifications for curriculum and
instruction) explicating common core reading and math, history/civics, and NGSS
standards, and the adoption of high-quality instructional materials based on
these frameworks. Standards have been supported by many reformers as a crucial
component of accountability, but their primary use should be to drive
curriculum, instruction, materials, and professional learning. For example, the
math standard “Use proportional thinking to solve problems” doesn’t tell
educators how best to develop proportional thinking, where students go wrong
and what to do about it, or how much time should be allotted’
- A willingness to put this curriculum and
instruction at the center of improvement efforts and a commitment by districts
and educators to school-site team-building, professional development, and
continuous improvement and adoption of high quality instructional materials
around this deeper learning’
- The slow roll-out of common core (currently supported by a large
majority of teachers) which resisted premature assessments with plenty of
opportunities for buy-in and understanding;
- the wide-spread political policy coherence and
educator agreement in the state grounded in a positive build and support,
empowering approach rather than a more punitive strategy;
- a growing shift at the state and district levels
from compliance to collaboration and support;
- broader accountability measures besides test
scores and viewing accountability primarily as assistance for instructional
improvement or to inform improvement discussions not as punishment; and,
finally and crucially,
- a local control funding shift which provided
significantly more funds especially for harder to educate students.
Here are the specifics of NAEP growth:
Reading: 8th grade: First in the nation.
California growth +10 and now within 2
points of the national average. National
growth +3 https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2017/#states/scores?grade=8
4th grade: Tied for 2nd nationally
California growth +6 and now within 6
points of the national average. National growth +1 https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2017/#states/scores?grade=4
Math: 8th grade: Tied for 2nd nationally.
California growth +6, Now within 5 points of
the national average. National growth 0. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/math_2017/#states/scores?grade=8
4th
grade: Tied for 15th in growth +1. 7 points behind nationally.
National growth 0. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/math_2017/#states/scores?grade=4
Gaps have actually narrowed in the state. White student
scores have not grown as fast as Hispanic and Black children.
Another set of data from the Urban Institute app which
adjusts NAEP scores for language, poverty, race, and special ed. And whether the adjustments are accurate or not,
comparisons using the same standards are legit. http://apps.urban.org/features/naep/
I took off the age control but let the others stay. (If you
look at the website be sure to refresh after looking at math to allow you to
click from math to reading and when you do remember to put off the age control)
These data are ranks based on average scores, and if you mouse over the state
it shows the growth in rankings. It is apparent that California has made large
jumps in rankings this year from the past few years. (Florida has not grown as
much but is at the top or near the top nationally in all the rankings—whether
from state policy or district independent efforts needs to be determined)
In 8th grade reading we are now 14th
in the country up from the low 40’s as recently as 2013.
In 4th grade reading we are 19th in the country
up from the high 30’s in 2015.
In 8th grade math we are 22nd up from
the low 40’s as recently as 2013.
In 4th grade math (our weakest area where we need
to undertake considerable work) we are 37th up from the low 40’s in 2011 and
2015.
Some confirmation is provided by our most recent SBAC 11th
grade reading scores. 60% now reach the “proficient” level—a level consistent
with 4yr college work and the NAEP proficiency level which compares favorably
to the other SBAC states that are much less diverse. To me, getting 60% of our
diverse students to that level is impressive and a tribute to the hard work of
our educational practitioners and policy direction. On the other hand, the
state is much weaker in SBAC math performance at 11th grade
(although improving) and math will be a major area of subsequent improvement
efforts.
Building Better Schools