Edu Commentary

Virginia Governor Mark Warner wants to try to entice more high quality teachers into the state’s most challenging schools.

Senator Kerry will make a major policy announcement on the same subject later today as well as unveil other aspects of a new teacher quality agenda. Edu Commentary has taken a look, among other proposals there is good stuff on differential pay, holding schools of education accountable, more mentoring for new teachers, quicker dismissal for low-performing teachers, and better tests for new teachers. Again, Kerry has decided to focus on issues that are (a) politically smart because they avoid the spending versus accountability phony war (b) good strategies to make No Child Left Behind work better and (c) real problems! Good choice!

The AP reports on the rise in online diploma mills that some teachers have used to garner pay increases or try to meet the teacher quality requirements of No Child Left Behind (which makes the outrageous demand that teachers have demonstrated knowledge of the subject they teach). No doubt this too will somehow get blamed on No Child!

Update: Here are Kerry’s teacher quality proposals.

If Edu Commentary’s email is any indication, there is some head scratching about Senator John Kerry’s proposals to increase graduation rates. It’s good politics but just what is so noteworthy? After all, isn’t pretty much everyone for higher graduation rates? Sure, but Kerry’s policy is a good one, here’s why:

Most Americans probably don’t realize we have such a substantial dropout problem. After all, the majority of states report dropout rates between four and seven percent, which, while not perfect, does not seem too bad. But these figures only represent the percent of high schoolers dropping out in a given year. And, just like a monthly interest rate on a credit card that looks like a good deal but actually translates into an exorbitantly high APR, over the course of three or four years a four to seven percent dropout rate translates into a lot of kids falling through the cracks.

The Urban Institute and Manhattan Institute calculate more accurate graduation rates by comparing the number of students who enroll in ninth grade to the number graduating four years later. These studies find that about one-third of high school students nationally don’t graduate, and barely half of African American and Hispanic students graduate in four years. That is a real problem seeing that a high school degree is the absolute minimal credential for any opportunity in today’s economy.

The No Child Left Behind Act holds schools and states accountable for graduation rates to avoid creating an incentive to “push out” struggling students to raise test scores. Members of Congress were aware of the reporting problems and included language in the law encouraging states to calculate rates using the Urban/Manhattan method. But the Bush Administration issued ambiguous regulations and allowed states to adopt much looser graduation rates definitions for NCLB. So, the underreporting and obfuscation continues. Kerry proposes to deal with this and enforce the intent of the law. Wonky stuff, but important.

Afterthought: Say what you will about NCLB, if disputes over data collection garner this sort of attention then that’s a pretty good indication the law is focusing more attention on low-income and minority kids. That’s a good thing, right?

Two events worth checking out coming up in Washington, D.C. next week. On Tuesday May 11, Common Good is sponsoring a forum on law in public schools. You can find out more about what promises to be a very interesting and lively discussion here. On Thursday May 13, Mass Insight Education and Research Institute and Partnership for Learning are sponsoring a forum on public opinion about standards and accountability in Massachusetts and Washington. The state superintendents from both states will speak along with national experts. Good data about what’s happening in two states that have been at this for a while. If you want more info on that one email

Erin Angell at erin@ksaplus.com.

Yesterday, Senator John Kerry announced a new plank of his education agenda, focusing on reducing high school drop out rates and increasing high school graduates by 1 million over the next five years. Here’s what the New York Times and LA Times have to say about it. Tomorrow, Kerry is expected to further flesh out his education agenda with proposals for teachers.

Focusing on the dropout issue is a smart strategy for Kerry. First, it’s a real problem. Dropout rates are generally substantially underreported. According to the Urban Institute, only about half of black and Hispanic students graduate from high school and only 75 percent of whites. Second, it’s an issue where President Bush has been asleep at the switch — No Child Left Behind included provisions to ensure better reporting of drop out rates but the Bush Administration has not followed through on them. Finally, it allows Kerry to talk about progressive ideas like smaller high schools and mentoring for disadvantaged middle school students while linking these issues to outputs and accountability. That keeps Kerry out of the “accountability versus spending” phony war the Bush Administration wants while allowing him to advance a progressive agenda.

New Schools Venture Fund is a philanthropic venture capital fund that invests in promising and scalable education ideas. Like a traditional VC fund it seeks out good ideas and helps nurture them to fruition. But unlike a traditional VC fund, New Schools is not-for-profit. New Schools invests in ideas like Teach for America, New Leaders for New Schools, Greatschools.net, Teachscape, Success for All, Green Dot Public Schools, Aspire Public Schools, and Civic Builders.

The venture capitalist John Doerr started New Schools. Doerr, a partner at Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers, is a Silicon Valley legend because of his ability to see around corners and over the horizon before others do and for his genuine ability to think outside of defined boundaries. Now he’s applying those skills to the education sector and his strategy is paying social dividends. New School’s co-founder and CEO Kim Smith, who was recently recognized by Newsweek as the sort of young leader who will shape society in years to come, is also a remarkable change agent and has built New Schools into an impressive and progressive presence in education.

Each year New Schools convenes a summit bringing together the social entrepreneurs they support, foundations and philanthropic interests, and key actors in the education. It’s always a great chance to reconnect with fascinating change-oriented people and gifted educators, to recharge, and to learn something new. It starts today in Palo Alto.

The Colorado legislature passed a new charter bill today that will improve charter schooling there. Here’s why you should care:

Hardcore Edu Commentaryers: because this bill is a promising way to allow for multiple authorizers of charter schools while still ensuring public accountability. Softcore Edu Commentaryers: because to get the bill passed, its sponsor, Denver state representative Terrance Carroll, had to take on many in his own party and the state teachers’ union. It’s a great political story.

The new bill — which was sponsored by Sen. Peter Groff in the Colorado Senate — establishes a nine member state board to grant charters in communities where school districts are uninterested or unwilling to. The bill is specifically aimed at increasing public school choice options for disadvantaged students. In almost every state with charter schools the majority of charters are found in low-income communities. However, in Colorado about one-third of the state’s charter schools are in the suburbs.

What’s amazing though is that in Colorado, where a voucher program was passed last year, there is still so much political resistance to public charter schools. Choice is coming to education just like it has come to most walks of American life. The question is whether progressives will steer its energy toward progressive ends like public charter schools serving disadvantaged students or marginalize themselves by taking a reactionary posture.

We know Carroll’s answer, and it’s the right one.

Today’s USA Today offers two views on charter school accountability but unfortunately both sides overstate their case. USA Today overplays the problems of a few charter schools (though the paper correctly notes that in this business a few bad anecdotes are all it takes to discredit something). Conversely, Jeanne Allen of the Center for Education Reform blames everything in sight for these problems except the two most obvious culprits (a) not everyone who has sought to start a charter school has been competent to do so; and (b) some state laws and policies do not foster effective oversight which only compounds problem (a). Yet as we argued yesterday overall charter schooling has been a success, particularly for disadvantaged students.

For a look at a state doing it right, Edu Commentary recommends this new PPI report on charter schooling in Minnesota. Jon Schroeder describes the history and status quo of charter schooling there as well as lessons for Minnesota and for the nation. Minnesota passed the nation’s first charter school law in 1991 and the law subsequently won prestigious Innovations in Government Award from Harvard University. Now the state is pushing the envelope by innovating with new charter school authorizing arrangements and other reforms.

Schroeder’s study is the second in a series. Look for reports on Arizona, New York City, Indianapolis, Ohio, and Texas later this year.

Afterthought: Speaking of accountability, this Christian Science Monitor story brings the opportunities and challenges of “virtual” or online charter schools into sharp relief (and the politics too but you have to read between the lines for that!). Ignore the inflammatory headline; it’s a useful story to read.

Senator John Kerry will focus on education this week. Look for a speech and policy announcement on dropouts later today. This is a smart issue for him because not only is it a genuine problem, but is also one where President Bush has clearly dropped the ball.

UCLA’s Daily Bruin ran a revealing article about campus diversity efforts that Joanne Jacobs unpacks. The article and her commentary are well worth reading.

And, in two separate articles James Vaznis and Peter Schworm of the Boston Globe do a great job showing why a seemingly big victory for poor kids — a Massachusetts court decision ordering more equitable school funding — actually is causing uneasiness in many communities because of complicated state and local school finance politics.

Update: More on increased school finance litigation because of NCLB. It’s something liberals should love!

Finally, Edu Commentary heard a lot of buzz and rumors about the future of New American Schools. Now, word is that NAS will be subsumed by the American Institutes for Research and function as a fee-for-service provider under their flag. New American was the original purveyor of the “break the mold” idea to create new school designs during Bush I. Now, apparently, the mold is indeed broken.

A recent Washington Post op-ed by Jessica Vaughan, of the anti-immigration Center for Immigration Studies, implies that nefarious forces of trade agreements and penny-pinching school districts are working to lower teacher certification requirements and fill teaching slots with cheaper immigrant teachers. Leaving aside the controversial issue of whether immigration visas belong in trade agreements, Vaughan’s arguments about teachers don’t pass the smell test. For starters, evidence suggests school district HR offices aren’t nearly this strategic. Vaughan also glosses over the complex array of reasons why districts might want to hire teachers from abroad, or why reducing certification barriers for potential teachers makes sense. Besides, the largest immigrant teacher programs exist to recruit teachers in areas where there is a shortage — in part because high certification barriers deter many otherwise qualified Americans from pursuing these teaching positions.