Author: Gregory Clark

Common Core Experiencing Delays

/ Gregory Clark / Leave a comment

The big discussion recently, among those who follow education policy around the United States, surrounds the “Common Core”. Dating back to 2010, the Common Core State Standards is a plan adopted by almost every state (there are five holdouts) which creates a common set of standards in the core areas of K-12 education; math, english, social studies, and science.

Here is a brief history of the motivations most won’t take the time to fill you in on the background information: No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the federal education policy which enforces strict accountability measures on schools that “underperform,” does not actually set the standards schools/districts/states have to meet. That’s right, states set the standards for their schools. As long as those standards are ‘reasonable’ the federal government is satisfied and accountability measures function as written. As you can imagine, states began to develop different standards to make it appear their students were “proficient.” Well, when funding is tied to proficiency, you better believe proficiency increases. But did proficiency actually increase? Probably not. In states like Texas where STATE “proficiency” increased, those same students did not improve on NATIONAL tests (which did not change meaningfully, if at all.) If you ever heard the phrase “Race to the Bottom,” it is likely this was the situation they were talking about. There was an incentive to feign improvement.

Common Core standards were developed by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers to “ensure that students graduating from high school are prepared to enter credit bearing entry courses in two or four year college programs or enter the workforce.” Sounds pretty good, right? Especially considering how everything was devolving at the state level. But now, everyone is up in arms about Common Core. Teachers unions are upset. Those on the Religious Right are upset. And states and governors have become upset about Common Core. All of this right when Common Core is finally being implemented (for reasons about the delay, see my note below). Why?

If you follow any of those links, you’ll find out what the stated complaints are. The teacher unions are upset they weren’t prepared properly. Conservatives think the federal government is just trying to take over more of public education. And states? State say they need time to evaluate, so they’re delaying implementation left and right.

I have a different theory about the reasons for the revolt about Common Core; the standards are too rigorous! Teachers and states have a lot to lose once they commit to higher standards, because NCLB still has strict accountability measures tied to performance on standardized tests. Everyone approves of accountability in principle (AFT- yes, the national teachers union– publicly endorses accountability and standards and testing). When asked, of course no public servant would say they don’t want to raise standards to ensure the children are educated properly. But those same people despise accountability in practice. (Conservatives hate it simply because it takes away power from states.)

Two things are going on which I think help explain the revolt against Common Core. First, everyone who endorsed it is finally getting to see the fruit of their labor. Second, NCLB hasn’t changed, so that same fruit has caught them with their pants down; in fact, there were new (and increased) financial incentives to adopt common standards. Now they’re all stuck with this new set of standards which they believe are too difficult to meet. Because NCLB has such strict punitive measures for those who cannot meet “proficiency” levels, there is a strong incentive to reject any standard of proficiency which is difficult, resource intensive, and (most importantly) takes a long time to reach.

I don’t blame the teachers, or the governors, or Obama, or even NCLB specifically. The entire idea of school accountability based upon standardized testing has “problem” written all over it. This is not to say public education cannot be improved through government policy. But I think it’s been just about long enough that we can call standardized testing a failed metric of keeping schools accountable.

Those familiar with the topics will recognize that I’ve just made some pretty bold claims. Those less familiar can still probably see some strong assumptions. Please let me know your thoughts in the comments!

Note: So if the Common Core was developed two years ago, why are we talking about it now? Well, it takes a long time to develop what will actually go into the Common Core, and even longer to create a standardized test to measure achievement of the new standards.

Quick Update to the Department of Justice’s Lawsuit in Louisiana Over School Choice Program

/ Gregory Clark / Leave a comment

Two weeks ago, I wrote about the pending lawsuit over Louisiana’s voucher program. As some predicted, yesterday the lawsuit was dropped. However, the Obama Administration has called for a federal review of the program. It is likely this case will fade out of the conversation, but the battle over vouchers, and school choice more generally, is not over.

Here is a news piece with more information.

Louisiana Voucher System Under Fire From the Department of Justice

/ Gregory Clark / Leave a comment

For those who have not been following this lawsuit, the federal government is claiming students in Louisiana are being racially segregated because of the state’s voucher system. What appears to be happening in the lead-up to the actual hearing (later this month) is a lot of political maneuvering to shape the conversation. In addition to a debate over whether or not segregation is occurring, both camps are using the attention to debate whether or not voucher systems (and private schools, generally) are beneficial. It is out of the scope of this post to discuss the merits of private education and vouchers.

However, I think a conversation about school choice, and the potential segregation that occurs as a result, is worth bringing up. As with many perceived problems in education research the answers depend on who you ask, what the specific question you ask is, and where you look for answers. The case for integration is no different.

Syracuse’s own MPA professor Bifulco finds integration to be endemic to voucher programs in North Carolina. Many people, and the Department of Justice, are claiming the same effects are happening in Louisiana. Is this a horrifying problem that must be addressed and changed immediately? I am not so sure, and here is why.

Children and parents are voluntarily choosing the schools to attend. This is not just a case of white parents taking their kids out of schools because they don’t like the racial composition (a problem many believe to be larger than it is). The families who are using the vouchers, those exercising choice, are predominantly minorities. In many places where voucher programs are set up, those eligible to use them are students from poor families and students attending failing schools; this means the students are heavily skewed toward non-white. Indeed, those who are “suffering” from segregation are minorities voluntarily segregating themselves. I’m not saying this cannot still be considered a problem, or that measures should not be taken to rectify the situation. I’m merely pointing out that the issue is probably not as sinister as the DOJ may have us believe.

Moreover, this lawsuit appears politically motivated. No schools are the same. Never, in the history of public education, have schools been the same. The control of schools at the local level has always resulted in providing unequal education to students. It is no secret that rich towns have better schools than inner cities. And these “rich” schools rarely have the same racial composition as “poor” schools. It is not a school, district, or state policy to racially segregate students, but it happens. Why isn’t the DOJ and the Obama Administration going after the hundreds of neighboring cities with racial and economic disparities for lack of integration? Probably because the schools aren’t part of a ‘school choice’ system. This difference in income and racial composition between schools is only more extreme when comparing public vs. private schools. Fairlie finds racial sorting to be very high in this case. Why isn’t the DOJ calling for an end to private schooling? Probably because they know the American public would not allow such a removal of freedom of choice.

In my opinion, Democrats generally protest school choice for a whole host of valid, political reasons (as numerous as the valid reasons for supporting school choice). But in this case and many others, using loaded words and ideas like segregation and racism are tactics which are used to mislead the public. If they really cared about the racial composition of schools, they would have MUCH bigger fish to fry than vouchers. It just so happens that their current ‘fish’ pisses off a lot of their core voters, teachers.

New Movement In Higher Education

/ Gregory Clark / Leave a comment

The ideas in this New York Time article can be applied to many different areas of education in addition to higher ed. For those who do not wish to read the entire article, I’ll provide a brief summary. There is a recent movement in higher education to grant degrees for the amount of knowledge and skills you can demonstrate; this is in place of how long you have studied. In order to keep down the costs (money AND time) of obtaining a college degree, higher education institutions have begun to offer credit for finishing the work. These “competency-based” programs are all about outcomes, providing certification once learning requirements can be demonstrated. Many institutions, including the University of Wisconsin, have started testing these programs, and from what I can tell they are exclusively online.

Are you skeptical of these new programs? You’re not alone. A lot of questions (some are my own, and some are in the article) are being raised about whether or not degrees obtained this way can be compared to those conferred by a traditional college or university. Is the quality of education provided high enough? What about the classroom experience? If credits can be earned quickly, can we be sure the students have learned anything? How can we be sure they have learned the right things?

My largest concern is about assessment. In most areas of learning, it is a constant challenge for instructors to know how to create assessments that reflect what a student has (and should have) learned throughout the course. My initial reaction to this article was fear that it may be impossible to grade a student who a professor has never met, and who sprinted through the material in three weeks. But this is not entirely unique to online courses. College and university courses usually have only a few graded assignments; they just take four months to complete and occasionally an instructor will actually interact with the student. So in this light, any concern about assessment may actually be misguided.

This can also be applied to K-12 education. The role of assessment is growing in importance every day it seems. After No Child Left Behind, the results of standardized tests carry weighty consequences. If we’re comfortable with assessment when applied frequently (as in K-12), and infrequently (in higher education, online and/or on campus), what is it about a large standardized test that is so different and controversial? Is it the weighty consequences? College exams have weighty consequences. Is it their frequency? Some courses only have a midterm and a final exam.

I find myself unable to provide a full answer to the questions raised by this article and my own analysis of its significance. Please feel free to comment and let me know what you think.

No Child Left Behind: For Better or for Worse, It Is (Probably) Here to Stay

/ Gregory Clark / Leave a comment

I just finished reading a book about the radical change in American public education policy: No Child Left Behind and the Transformation of Federal Education Policy, 1965-2005, by Patrick J. McGuinn.

Here is a brief summary of his findings, so you don’t have to read the entire book if you don’t have the time.

Beginning in the 1960’s, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was created during the Johnson Administration as part of the Great Society. This marked a significant increase in federal involvement in public education. Whereas public education was traditionally the jurisdiction of the states, the federal government now became a player. The policy regime resulting from the ESEA, the equity regime, was centered on the idea that the federal government had the responsibility to provide financial assistance to underprivileged students. The focus was on policy inputs. After the Nation at Risk report in the early 1980’s, a focusing event, public education began to increase in salience as an issue needing to be addressed by government. National-level politicians, wanting to capitalize on this increase in salience, broadened the scope of conflict to the federal level. This marked the beginning of the end of the equity regime. The preferred policy from ideological centrists and the broader public was standards-based reform. However, because this reform did not appeal to some strong groups from within both Republican and Democrat constituencies, it fell prey to institutional difficulties inherent in creating policy change. Once pressure to solve the perceived public education crisis peaked in 2000, a bipartisan effort overcame these obstacles and No Child Left Behind was passed in 2002. The new policy regime focused on government responsibility to educate all students, and to monitor educational outputs through standards-based accountability measures.

The findings indicate, and the author argues, that education policy is very difficult to change. It took twenty years (from start to finish) to dismantle one paradigm and install another. For those who are unhappy with the status quo being No Child Left Behind (NCLB), this is not good news.

I am not afraid to speak up and criticize NCLB. Some parts are worse than others, in my humble opinion, but it really is a package deal. The use of standardized testing, and using results to justify punitive “accountability” measures, is something I’m sure will pop up frequently in my future posts, and not in a positive tone. But if I take seriously McGuinn’s findings, the future is likely to be filled with standardized testing. Moreover, changing the status quo will require not just the realization that standardized testing does not accomplish what NCLB hoped it would; it will also require large public concern about the state of public education. NCLB came about only after public education became the most important issues in America (measured by opinion polls). I do not think we will see another paradigm shift for a long time, especially given the salience of economic issues which does not show much sign of decline.