Social Promotion Fig Leaf

March 1, 2011

Matt Ladner and I have been testifying to state legislatures around the country about the effects of Florida’s policy to end social promotion in 3rd grade.  The policy default-retains all 3rd graders who score below a certain threshold on the state’s reading test.  There are several exemptions to being retained, but about 59% of low-achieving 3rd graders repeated the grade.

Research that Marcus Winters and I have published in the peer-reviewed journal, Education Finance and Policy, finds significant achievement benefits for students retained under the policy.  After two years the retained students outperformed their promoted counterparts by about .46 standard deviations, which is the equivalent of receiving about 6.6 additional months of reading instruction.  We compared students who barely performed above the test threshold on the 3rd grade test and were default-promoted to students who performed just below the test threshold.  This regression-discontinuity design approximates a random assignment experiment.

When we testify about this research we are now commonly being asked about a “study” from the Miami-Dade School District that claims to find the effect fades after two years.  Clearly the opponents of the policy (read: the unions) are arming folks with this to dispute our research findings.  When people oppose a policy that is supported by rigorous research it is important that they at least have a fig leaf of research to support their opposition.  The Miami-Dade report is that fig leaf.  The report concludes:

This study has replicated the procedures of theGreene and Winters  (2006)  paper  evaluat ingFlorida’s test-based promotion policy and hasderived very different judgements. Where theyconcluded that the retention policy led to significant improvements in reading for the retained students,this study finds no ultimate advantages. However,it would be a mistake to interpret this study as somekind of indictment of the Greene and Winters work. Their interpretation was valid for the way the datalooked after two years. The picture is quite different after four years

First, it is important to note that the “study” is actually a 4 page document produced by the internal research department of the Miami-Dade School District.  It has no descriptive statistics, no detailed description of the methodology, and virtually no literature review.  In short, it is extremely hard to judge the accuracy of a “study” that is little more than two graphs that have never been published, reviewed, or fully-described.

Second, the Miami-Dade internal report only claims to analyze data from the Miami-Dade School District, while our research is based on data from the entire state of Florida.  It is perfectly possible that Miami-Dade poorly implemented the policy by doing things like granting the exemptions inappropriately or failing to offer effective reading interventions for students who were retained.  Even if Miami-Dade did not have successful results with the program, the entire state did.

Third, it is inaccurate to say that the Miami-Dade “study” replicated our positive findings after two years but that those positive effects later disappeared.  Their graphs suggest that there was no positive effect of being retained in Miami-Dade 1 and 2 years after the retention decision, and then they show a positive effect in years 3 and 4, which disappears in year 5.  We found a small positive effect after one year that grew into a larger effect after two years.

Our results (even in the first two years) are completely different from those in the Miami-Dade report.  It is hard to say whether this is because they only looked at Miami-Dade while we looked at the entire state, or because they did not actually replicate our methodology.  Four pages and two graphs do not allow for a lot of nuanced analysis of the findings.

We are in the process of extending our analyses to include additional years, so we may have a better idea of whether the benefits we observed state-wide grow, shrink, or remain constant.  In the meantime, the unions have provided their research fig leaf to cover state legislators who oppose the policy regardless of what research finds.

2 Comments | social promotion | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

Seriously, What Is Up at UFT?

February 28, 2011

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

I’m catching up on this a little late, but ALELR has connected a couple of dots and drawn a picture of things at the UFT that can only make you say “Epic Facepalm.”

OK, you do remember the whole Cue Card Check scandal? At the time, Randi Weingarten was so embarrassed that she was forced to go out and claim she knew nothing about all this – cue cards? what cue cards? – and would “make some changes in the union.”

I missed this at the time, but last summer Elizabeth Green (who also broke the Cue Card Check story) reported that Marvin Reiskin, the UFT political director, had taken early retirement in the aftermath of the scandal. He was lined up for retirement at the end of the year anyway, but forcing him out early – even a month early – beats doing nothing. It sends an internal signal, however muted.

Obviously UFT had to be looking for a replacement who would restore credibility. Their number one priority after such a humiliation must have been to bring in someone who would restore adult supervision – and, more importantly, be seen to do so – show the watching world that the grownups were back in charge at UFT.

So get this: the person tapped to play that role was Paul Egan.

I think the question now becomes: why does UFT have an organizational culture in which people like this consistently rise to the top, no matter how strong the external incentives against it?

1 Comment | teacher union | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

Hoxby Offers a Free Education

February 28, 2011

Check out this video of an hour long lecture by Stanford’s Caroline Hoxby reviewing economic insights into education policy.  They say that nothing is free, but this comes darn close to a free education.  It will only cost you an hour.

Check out the part on higher education at selective universities that begins around the 40 minute mark.

3 Comments | economics | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

74.2

February 25, 2011

My colleague, Bob Costrell, has an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal that tells you the one number you need to know to understand the dispute over collective bargaining and public employee compensation in Wisconsin.  It is 74.2.  That is how many cents the public pays Milwaukee Public School (MPS) employees for retirement and health benefits  for each dollar of salary.  The comparable figure for private sector employees is 24.3.

Bob explains exactly how benefits in Milwaukee could cost nearly as much as salary.  In short, it has to do with the fact that the public pays the employee as well as the employer contributions to the pension.  Teachers actually were given a second, additional pension by MPS.  And the public pays for the entire cost of a gold-plated health plan for current and retired employees.  All of this was obtained in collective bargaining negotiations.

Leave a Comment » | school accountability | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

MPINO

February 24, 2011

Most people are familiar with RhINOs (Republicans in Name Only), which is a pejorative for Republican officials who differ from other Republicans on certain key issues. With a new piece in Education Next, Stuart Buck and I would like to introduce to the policy lexicon the term, MPINO — Merit Pay in Name Only.

Few merit pay programs for teachers manage to overcome union-fueled political opposition to be adopted and implemented. We estimate, based on data from Vanderbilt’s National Center for Performance Incentives, that no more than 3.5% of all districts have anything even remotely resembling merit pay.

But even the few programs that aren’t blocked are largely co-opted and diluted so that they are little more than MPINO. They tend to define merit as additional credentialing, such as paying for national board certification or simply additional degrees. The bonuses tend to be small add-ons to the traditional salary schedule based entirely on seniority and credentials. And the plans are frequently not fully implemented or quickly reversed.

The problem is that merit pay programs are trying to simulate the compensation systems that one might develop in a competitive market. But without the pressure and discipline of the market there is nothing to keep these plans sensible or permit the constant tinkering necessary to address gaming or other design weaknesses. In short, we hold out little hope for merit pay improving achievement in the absence of meaningful choice and competition given the union ability to block, dilute, or co-opt merit pay proposals.

In addition, we suggest that the most powerful form of merit pay is the concern that inadequate performance might cause one to lose one’s job. Without ending tenure and burdensome fair dismissal procedures, merit pay is unlikely to do much to change a teaching workforce that cannot lose jobs for sub-par performance.

Even if we see more programs that are called merit pay, we are unlikely to get more than MPINO. Unfortunately, this won’t even result in SAINO (Student Achievement in Name Only).

6 Comments | teacher pay, teacher quality | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

How to Avoid Dumbing High Schools Down in Re-authorizing ESEA

February 22, 2011

(Guest Post by Sandra Stotsky)

President Obama wants all states to adopt Common Core’s standards for mathematics and English language arts and reading . He also wants states to use tests based on these standards in the re-authorization of ESEA. The feds are also funding development of not only these tests but also curriculum and instructional resources tied to these standards.  Despite the questionable legal basis for all of this, it is hard to find legislators commenting on the implications of the language the feds want in a re-authorized ESEA, perhaps because they have been mesmerized by the glib phrase that states should use standards “that prepare all students for college and career”?  Who would oppose that?  Yet, there are good reasons why Congress should remove wording in the re-authorization of ESEA that implicitly requires states to adopt or use Common Core’s standards, or leaves states no choice but to adopt or use them.

At present, states must report student scores yearly to USDE to show Adequate Yearly Progress.  States now use scores from state assessments based on their own state standards and cut scores.  However, most states’ standards and tests are of poor quality, embed low academic expectations, and do not allow comparison of results.  As a result, about 44 states have already adopted CCS as their own state standards (some enticed by the prospect of RttT funds), even though many fear the loss of local control of curriculum and instruction, and are worried about the costs they will incur from administering the high-tech tests USDE wants.   Beggars can’t be choosers.  USED promises to make the tests free to all states (though not the costs of administering them).  Texas, Virginia, Minnesota, and a few other states have not officially adopted the CCS because they judge their own state standards in math or reading to be better or also fear losing  local control of curriculum and instruction.

The USDE makes a reasonable case for standardizing academic expectations across all states and using the same tests across states to enable us to compare results. We have a highly mobile school population.  Having national standards and assessments sounds like the way to address 50 sets of mostly low quality standards and tests. However, national standards and tests do not necessarily lead to high academic expectations and a high-achieving population. Most countries already have national standards, but most do not have high-achieving students.  Much depends on the quality of their national standards and tests (as well as the quality of their teachers).  If standards and the tests based on them are not first-rate, they guarantee mediocrity for the whole country at the same time that they remove local control of curriculum and instruction.

The blackest mark CCS gets is for the low level of the academic expectations built into their definition of, and standards for, college-readiness.  Besides the legal questions, Common Core’s “college- and career-readiness standards” are not rigorous enough to prepare American high school students for authentic college-level coursework.  Nor can they make this country competitive in mathematics and science.  Despite the claims of the many organizations that were funded by the Gates Foundation to develop, praise, promote, and evaluate them positively, CCS are neither internationally benchmarked nor research-based.

Readers can find this out in critiques by independent researchers or content experts, such as Diane Ravitch and William Mathis’s report for the National Education Policy Center on the lack of a research base for CCS, R. James Milgram’s explanation of why, as a member of the Validation Committee, he could not sign off on Common Core’s mathematics standards; and (3) Sandra Stotsky’s explanation of why, as a member of the Validation Committee, she could not sign off on Common Core’s secondary English language arts and reading standards (all public documents).

It is not surprising that CCS do not prepare high school students for authentic college-level, credit-bearing freshman courses. They were shaped chiefly by the same special interests that gave us the poor state standards they were designed to replace. CCS were deliberately not built on the best state standards, those once in California, Indiana, or Massachusetts. The people who had shaped those standards were purposely kept at arm’s length.

Language for a re-authorized ESEA has not yet been finalized, but it will be hard for legislators to oppose using scores from tests based on “standards that prepare all students for college and career” for accountability.  How many legislators know that the only set of standards that would satisfy this wording would be Common Core’s?  Who remembers that state high school standards have never been designed to prepare students for credit-bearing college freshman courses.  Their legitimate mission has always been to prepare students for a meaningful high school diploma.

By law, a state test must be based on state standards. ERGO, those states that have not adopted CCS would be compelled to do so in order to use tests based on standards with such a description.  On the other hand, those 44 states that have already adopted CCS would feel compelled to use the common tests for financial reasons because the standards on which these tests are based are now their state standards and there are no other tests readily available. If states must use tests based on standards claimed to “prepare all students for college and career” in order to get their Title I money, USDE would end up in control of public education in every state in this country.

ESEA should give states a choice of the high school standards and tests they use for accountability–but insist that those they use are internationally benchmarked and research-based. Language could be inserted wherever needed to allow all states to use standards  and tests based on them that satisfy state high school graduation requirements so long as they are internationally benchmarked and research-based.  Such a qualification could be used instead of language requiring use of standards “that prepare all students for college and career.”  In this way, states would maintain control of curriculum and instruction and decide what tests satisfy their high school diploma requirements.  They may prefer objective end-of-course tests in algebra I, geometry, algebra II, U.S. history, chemistry, physics, and biology instead of “performance-based” subjective tests.  Policies built  into ESEA wording should strengthen, not weaken, the high school curriculum and prevent federal control of the content of public education.

5 Comments | school accountability | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

FEC Drills Down the Data

February 21, 2011

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

If you want to drill down into state level data on school choice, check out the new edition of The ABCs of School Choice from my comrades-in-arms at the Foundation for Educational Choice.

Back when I was head of research for FEC, I used to put together the ABCs publication, and let me tell you – this new version is not your father’s ABCs. They’ve got a ton of new data, such as:

  • How many students used Arizona’s tax-credit scholarships in each year since the program began? How about the personal tax credit in Illinois or Ohio’s EdChoice voucher?
  • How many schools have taken Florida McKay vouchers in each year? How about Milwaukee vouchers?
  • What was the average dollar value of Georgia’s special needs voucher program in each year? How about Louisiana’s failing-schools voucher?
  • Et cetera?

Plus, as always, the ABCs gives you a detailed rundown on how each program works – the rules and regulations, the eligibility qualifications, legal issues, the whole story. Check it out.

Leave a Comment » | research reports, tax-credit scholarships, vouchers | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

Battleground Wisconsin

February 21, 2011

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker on the battle over collective bargaining:

Leave a Comment » | teacher union | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by matthewladner

It’s What’s Inside that Counts

February 18, 2011

Let me clarify something about the series of posts we’ve had about Paul Egan (pictured in the undated photo found above).

We do not mean to mock the body-size of the teacher union leader who threw a fit at a fancy Albany restaurant with two dozen of his union colleagues because his portion of quail was too small (and who was previously caught cheating while proctoring exams).  Frankly, I could care less how heavy people are (and could stand to lose some weight myself).

We aren’t mocking Egan because he is fat and ugly on the outside.  We are mocking him for being fat and ugly on the inside… where it counts.

The current series of Egan posts is like the previous series of “cue card check” posts, where the UFT (in fact Egan’s predecessor as political and legislative director for the NY teacher union) actually provided questions on cue cards for city council members to ask union leaders during hearings and in the process incorrectly spelled stakeholder as “steakholder.”  When the unions do something so stupid, with such brute force, and with such disregard for truth and decency it makes clear to all what they are really doing every day in stealing educational opportunities from children to advance their own adult interests.  These things deserve a good mocking.

So, here’s to you, Paul Egan — a man who is a walking and living steakholder… along with an insufficient amount of quail.

steakholder

(Image source:  http://kaaser.at)

1 Comment | teacher union | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

Fat, Drunk, and Stupid is No Way to Go Through Life, Son

February 18, 2011

Teacher Union Political Honcho, Paul Egan, has an even better resume than I thought. In addition to his alcohol-fueled tizzy fit in a fancy restaurant with two-dozen other union hacks over the portion size (which is something that he may have a habit of doing), Egan also has the distinction of being caught cheating when proctoring exams as a middle school teacher in 1999.

According to the NY Daily News:

The special schools investigator fingered Egan, a social studies teacher, 11 years ago for his part in the cheating scandal. “Teacher Paul Egan used several different methods to cheat,” the investigator reported. The probe found he would tell students before a test to sharpen their pencils – and then depart, leaving the answers to the first 11 questions near the sharpener.

Because he loves children, Egan reportedly told his class: “Don’t tell anyone that I helped you or you’ll be the ones who get into trouble.”  Ah, education at its finest.

And thanks to incredibly difficult fair dismissal procedures required by the union’s collective bargaining agreement, Egan was not punished for these transgressions beyond having a letter of reprimand added to his file.

Given the type of people who are the leaders of the UFT, including cheating, glutinous, bullies, I can see why Diane Ravitch switched her views and became such good friends with the NY teacher union.

5 Comments | teacher union | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »