The New Republic

I actually have to disagree with you on this one. What Ravitch is trying to emphasize all the time is that the success of a lot of these schools like KIPP are largely due to the flood of grants from the private sector supporting them, and that such a "private" system of education would not be sustainable, just because there aren't enough massive grants to go around the entire education system. Sure, let's experiment, sure, let's try to have more accountability especially in the terrible schools, sure, let's make more flexible the rules for firing a terrible teacher. Perhaps frightening teachers and having them "teach to the test" is a great strategy to later just requiring unions to become more flexible about firing bad teachers. But demonizing public education and "the system" is not the answer. Ravitch also argues that the people who end up in KIPP come from the most motivated families who often opt to switch from schools where there are a lot of dysfunctional and poor families and switch their kids to a better school. Sure, that's great for them, and sure, that's great for the KIPP schools (they keep getting the best students with the families most committed to education), but the government has to realize that it is leaving worse and worse schools behind. The emphasis should be to help the worst performing schools, establishing better curricula, extending hours for remedial help, investing in teachers, and sure, making flexible the rules for firing bad ones. Forcing teachers to "teach to the test" is the worst education that a kid can get (just think about how many teachers "teach to the test" in the top notch schools and academies around the country). Conclusion: Tests are important, as imperfect as they are. But to set an incentive structure that changes best practices in the classrooms of those teachers who are actually providing something genuinely valuable to their students is to wash our hands: forget about a real education, just have those kids testing high and check, we can say we've solved our education problem.

- candela

August 19, 2010 at 11:58am

I'm an education lobbyist in Minnesota and while I don't think Race to the Top is necessarily a bad thing based on unfounded premises, I also don't think it's a silver bullet to the nation's supposed education woes. I don't write "supposed" to strike a defensive posture against critics of the education system. We have problems and Secretary Duncan has done a decent job of identifying, both in Chicago and the nation, of some of the problems facing our schools. I don't speak for the whole education community in Minnesota, but my primary frustration with the federal government (and I believe this is shared by many) is that it woefully under-funds its mandated programs--particularly IDEA and Title I--to the extent that states throughout the nation are robbing their general funds to pay for the costs associated with these programs. When the make-work lattice-work of new programs like No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top are placed over this underfunding, it simply exacerbates the frustration of school boards, administrations, and staffs in trying to make certain that students are served. There are many noble ideas in Race to the Top and it is nigh on impossible to argue with the stated mission of No Child Left Behind, but can school districts throughout the country that are battling to balance budgets while still meeting student needs in an era of growing economic challenge and complexity be reasonably expected to accomplish their goals if the federal government refuses to fund its commitments to school districts at the statutory level of support? Further, why isn't the federal government more aggressively looking at ways to prevent the rise in special education costs and promoting regular classroom learning through research-based intervention strategies like Response to Intervention? Finally, why is Race to the Top being done on a competitive grant basis? If true and lasting reform is the goal of the Obama Administration, why aren't tools being given to all school districts to make the sought-after systemic changes? Why aren't state education agencies given support for statewide strategies as opposed to being forced to jump through hoops to garner dollars that may or may not meet the stated goals? In Minnesota, the past year has featured a needless, yet well-publicized feud, between our Governor and the teachers' union as we struggled to put together the state's application for the second round of awards under Race to the Top. Instead of wasting time quibbling over the contents of a grant application, this energy could have been used to develop a statewide "on the ground" plan that could have moved the state in the direction of the program's stated goals. As for the teacher quality issue, I would urge everyone here to look at what the Bush Foundation, under the creative and effective leadership of former Minneapolis Superintendent Peter Hutchinson, is doing with its Teacher Effectiveness Initiative. The part of the equation that simply doesn't get discussed enough in the whole teacher quality issue is the role of higher education in the preparation of teachers. What the Bush Foundation is attempting to do in Minnesota and the Dakotas is create a stronger dialog between school districts and teacher preparation programs to make certain that young teachers are being prepared for the challenges being faced in school districts. In closing, there's clearly a lot at stake in this debate. While the curriculum and teaching strategies used in classrooms have been and continue to be updated, we still cling to a school year based on a nineteenth-century agricultural economy. Further, the structure of our education system has remained largely the same. These, and other elements of the American education system, will have to be discussed as we move forward. The twin challenges of the achievement gap faced by many students and the growing opportunity gap being faced by all students do threaten our economic future. While Race to the Top highlights many facets of these challenges, it simply stays on the edges of the issue by not presenting a universal response to the problems faced by school districts. What we have is No Grantwriter Left Behind.

- Lundell

August 19, 2010 at 12:44pm

There is another thing which is killing public education funding, and thus starving districts in need of reform and money, that is sorely in need of reform that most states and their lawmakers are neglecting— guaranteed pensions for teachers. Where their salaries are on a par with person of comparable skill in the private sector there is no reason why they can't have a 401(k) or Simple IRA like most other taxpayers. Of course, this is a problem that applies to many more government workers than teachers, but so far as education goes, increased taxes to make up for the poor decisions of legislators who increased pension benefits a decade ago and pension managers who failed to conservatively invest the funds is the event horizon for public enthusiasm for paying for public education. That this problem is not being addressed bodes ill for every child who is going to be attending public school for the next 20 or more years.

- Stuart Wilder

August 19, 2010 at 1:41pm

It is unfortunate that a columnist as good as Chait generally is, could have this so wrong. Unfortunately, like so many other pundits he apparently lacks the training, statistical literacy, or actual knowledge of education research to make informed comments on this topic. (And yes, the folks with Masters degrees at the Center for American Progress are in the same boat.) Since I have neither the time or inclination to write a point by point rebuttal, I will restrict my comments to two key pillars of his argument. I dispute that America's performance in international tests is in decline. If one actually mucks around in this literature including the technical reports off TIMSS, PISA, and PIRLS, he will find that 1) international comparisons are dubious and error laden exercises due to many factors including differences in the populations tested, the lack of statistical control for socioeconomic factors, varying ages of tested populations, and so on. 2) Even accepting the validity of these measures, the US picture is very mixed according poverty levels to name one factor. Many states such as Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Jersey perform at or near the top of the world. Does Chait know that the US outranks Israel? Chait's more egregious claim is that teachers' effectiveness can be precisely or reliably measured by student achievement test scores. Putting aside the large problem with current testing systems as measures of student academic growth, there are very large problems that the statistical methods used to analyze the scores in order to come up with teacher effectiveness scores. This is the opinion of a Panel of the National Academy of Sciences in the comments on the Obama Race To the Top Regulations made last fall. This panel includes many of the leading experts in the field. On July 28th, The US Ed Department's National Center for Education Statistics Institute of Education Studies released a study done by researchers at Mathematica Policy Research. Let me quote Rutgers Professor Bruce Baker's take on the study: (from his School Finance 101 Blog) "Okay… Picture this…I’m rolling dice… and each time I roll a “6″ some loud-mouthed, tweet happy pundit who just loves value-added assessment for teachers gets fired. Sound fair? It might happen to someone who sucks at their job…or might just be someone who is rather average. Doesn’t matter. They lost on the roll of the dice. A 1 in 6 chance. Not that bad. A 5 in 6 chance of keeping their job. Can’t you live with that?" For the Mathematica Study see: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104004/pdf/20104004.pdf Actually the probablility that current value-added methods will incorrectly classify an average teacher as failing range from 10% to more likely around 25-35%. So I challenge Chait and all of the other pundits who want this to agree to submit to an annual "wheel of fortune." We can settle on the appropriate odds he and will accept for a random firing.

- hzwerling

August 19, 2010 at 2:17pm

Your article covers the essence of the problem. Although there are no silver bullets as an earlier commenter suggested, the administration's agenda at least encourages the firing of some bullets. Be they lead or tin, at least there is an effort underway, well beyond anything attempted thus far. That it belies the Republicans' point of view that Obama is a pawn of the unions is only a side benefit - the true beneficiaries will the be children of the next generation. You could not be more right that tenure is the least worthy measure of effectiveness - otherwise COBOL programmers would be all the rage! Performance measurement in every professional field, except sports perhaps, has some measure of subjectivity - because statistics can cheat the eye. A very effective professional can have relatively poor statistical results because of their environment - poor market, low achievers on their team etc., while the eye can see that the person is accomplishing far more than should be expected in the circumstances. That is why test scores matter some, but not completely, and why some subjectivity can address the problem that all things are not usually equal. That in turn requires a high degree of competence and, ironically, objectivity on the part of those providing subjective evaluations. A side comment to those who would propose the elimination of defined benefit pensions to teachers, firefighters, police officers et al. Imagine what the world would be like with 80 year old teacher, firefighters and police officers. It is far from proven that our population of 401K recipients will be in any position to retire when the time comes - a market collapse like we saw in the last two years can and has pushed back the retirement dreams of many! Walmart can only use so many greeters!

- Zachsteph

August 19, 2010 at 2:27pm

hzwerling: "So I challenge Chait and all of the other pundits who want this to agree to submit to an annual "wheel of fortune." You do know that many of America's biggest companies DO indeed practice this. HP, Intel, Microsoft...all will tolerate a few appearances in the bottom 15-20% of a stack ranking, and then you are managed out. A stack ranking involves a bunch of managers sitting around putting everyone in order based on contribution relative to your peers, while also attempting to take into account future potential. It's far from perfect, but knowing that two review cycles in the bottom 15% means you are getting asked to leave is a pretty strong motivator. It's odd that a job that is supposedly as important as teaching wants immunity from this. "I dispute that America's performance in international tests is in decline." Yeah, it's kind of like Cuba ending up ahead of the US in human rights. Governments will bend numbers to give the results they want. But we have plenty of historical data to look at in this country that is plenty accurate, and the trends are troubling. And yes, they are down from the early 50's for the population as a whole for college bound students. Now, things like Iowa Basics are up, but there are a lot of people 50 years ago that never made it past 8th grade. So, I'd submit that while our means and medians have improved, that improvement has come simply from more staying in school longer. Among college-bound kids, they are worse than ever. The top few % are better than ever. But that's of little consolation. Our top 20% (minus the top few %) have been effectively hammered down to the same level as the middle 20%. In 1885, the **admission** test to Jersey City **High** School asked three questions: 1) Find the product of 3 + 4x + 5x^2 - 6x^3 and 4 - 5x - 6x^2 2) Write a sentence containing a noun used as an attribute, a verb in the perfect tense potential mood, and a proper adjective 3) Name three events of 1777. Which was the most important and why? Should we take a guess how many college-bound kids could answer these 3 today? And if you look at the link here http://www.willisms.com/archives/2010/06/trivia_tidbit_o_821.html you can see how spending and test scores have changed over time. This text is to make sure the link doesn't get eaten.This text is to make sure the link doesn't get eaten.This text is to make sure the link doesn't get eaten.This text is to make sure the link doesn't get eaten.This text is to make sure the link doesn't get eaten.This text is to make sure the link doesn't get eaten.This text is to make sure the link doesn't get eaten.This text is to make sure the link doesn't get eaten.

- seattleeng

August 23, 2010 at 12:07am

We need to have a better and fuller understanding of the goals of education. Today's school reform movement -- of which the administration is a part -- has, amazingly, nothing to say about this basic, fundamental, obvious question. The tacit suggestion is that all that matters is preparing students to get a job or contribute to global competitiveness. The discussion, then, right now, is about how to build a better cog in a machine. Is the gear round and strong, with an adequate number of teeth? These things are easy to test, and if you test them well, you'll be able to make excellent gears. In the corporate world, the goal is to produce maximum profits. That's easy to test and easy to measure. There's no dispute within a business environment that if you're not making money, you're failing, because making money is the whole point. There's no other point. As should be obvious, there are other objects in life. The commissions make the salesman, but they don't make the man. When it comes to education, we're not building a machine, and the purpose isn't simply to generate profits. We are attempting, or should be attempting, to generate the well-rounded, curious, imaginative, broad-minded, widely literate, knowledgeable, confident, and, most importantly, decent and just and empathetic men and women -- human beings -- of tomorrow. Yes, these things are learned, to the extent they can be learned, in school -- in addition to in a home and a culture that values them. When the home and the culture fall short, as they often do, as today's narrow school reform movement demonstrates, schools become even more crucial in exposing young and developing minds to the knowledge, ideas, and skills that are essential to being good and strong people on the one hand, or else narrow stupid shits on the other. I'm appalled that all anybody seems interested in testing is math and reading. These are absolutely essential skills, no doubt about it. But actual knowledge is important too. History, science, literature, philosophy -- this is how we know how the world works, how we know anything important, how we know what is important in the first place, and how we know the truth. Knowledge is itself an aspect of literacy. You might understand the words but not get the point, because you don't understand the context. That's what knowledge gives you. I have encountered history teachers who couldn't, when asked, come up with a reason to study history. It's always about the byproducts -- the reading and writing skills one gains in the process. Is there no point to actually knowing history? Is there no point to knowing where you came from, how the present day fits within the continuum of humanity, how civilizations have worked, and not worked, in the past? I've also heard the hierarchy argument. Well, it's suggested, one needs math and reading in order to do science and history and literature. I don't think it works that way. It's not a zero-sum game. We should be doing all of it, all together, and it all works together, each element reinforcing the other. But if push comes to shove, yes, some number of fewer points on a math or reading test is worth some focused exposure to and emphasis on the basic concepts and notions and knowledge that comprise our understanding of human existence. But that's not how the incentives are aligned right now. Today the single-minded focus -- dictated by armchair educators, dilettantes, and assorted other ignoramuses like Bill and Melinda Gates -- is on "choice" and "accountability," buzzwords that refer to, respectively, charter schools and scapegoating teachers. The original idea of charter schools was to create places within a school system for educational experimentation, especially for those who are hardest to educate. Since being hijacked by today's cartoonish "competition" enthusiasts, it means cherry-picking the most motivated students, and leaving the hardest-to-educate to the regular schools, which, under NCLB, will inevitably face judgments of failure followed by ineffectual and harmful gestures like closing or "restructuring" or bullshitting the numbers to make things look better than they are. And, no, I'm not a cheerleader for every position taken by every teachers' union (though I don't begrudge unions for looking after their members, and the answer to resentment about union protections is the wider exercise of the right to seek them collectively rather than to dismantle them entirely). Teachers are obviously a big part of the equation, and a big part of the solution. I thoroughly object, however, to the increasingly common notion that teacher compensation reform -- i.e., screwing teachers -- is a panacea, and that the main issue facing education today is that it's led by an army of well-protected lazy bums. We should be working with teachers -- who, in my experience, give a great high holy shit about their job -- rather than making them the enemy. We might try not to assume with every act and statement that they're degenerate scum. We might try to listen to what our classroom warriors have to say, as they actually know, better than anyone, what the fuck is going on in our classrooms. We should be focusing on two things, in addition to or instead of all the current sideshow crap -- core curriculum, and student discipline. Right now, there's no discussion about curriculum, even though it's the most essential, basic issue -- what should kids know? Never mind, "Is our children learning?" What should they be learning to start with? My answers are decidedly traditional and non-p.c., and I find common ground with the more sensible conservative education critics of yore on this point. I likewise find common ground when it comes to discipline issues, where I'm all about no-bullshit-alllowed, zero-tolerance, get-tough, fuck-all-you-little-brats, etc. (How about student accountability?) We should have regular schools for those who can function within a normal environment, and bad apple military-style academies for those who can't. Anyway, even if I'm wrong in my armchair attitudes, it seems to me that we should at least be talking about the substance of American education in ways that go far beyond the flimsy, stupid hope that a magical market mechanism, without more, will produce competent adults and worthy Americans.

- JakeH

August 26, 2010 at 12:09am