Since education reform debates are too frequently bereft of data, everyone with an interest in improving student outcomes should celebrate this new report from Ulrich Boser at the Center for American Progress.
Titled "Return on Educational Investment: A district-by-district evaluation of U.S. educational productivity," the report investigates which American school districts are getting the best results per dollar of education funding. The impetus behind the study is intuitive: if we look at the nation's most successful school districts and see compelling patterns in how they spend their money, perhaps this will help us improve the practices of less successful school districts.
If you are an active participant in the education reform wars these days, you're already looking for the red meat: what does this report suggest about teacher accountability? Is poverty the most powerful factor preventing low-income students from succeeding at the same level as their wealthier peers? Hang on one second, we're getting there.
As the Washington Post's Valerie Strauss notes, Boser unveiled the report last week along with a number of caveats. Among these: data was hard to come by in some districts, it was untrustworthy in others and controlling for all relevant variables when comparing school districts is really, really difficult.
Fair enough. It pays to be cautious about making sweeping, "silver bullet" statements about solving education problems in the United States. On the other hand, data difficulties in "some" cases hardly eviscerate a study of "more than 9,000 districts that enroll more than 85 percent of all U.S. students." Furthermore, while we might be cautious about making national policy recommendations, the report is great for relative, local comparisons (Incidentally, the interactive map for the report is addictive. Want to know if your school district is productive? How about its rivals? Be true to your school!). Take one of the report's featured examples (emphasis added):
The Wisconsin school systems of Oshkosh and Eau Claire are about the same size and serve similar student populations. They also get largely similar results on state exams -- but Eau Claire spends an extra $8 million to run its school system.
So with apologies to Strauss, let's try to see anyway what the report suggests for the education reform debates.
As a former urban teacher -- I taught first grade in Crown Heights, Brooklyn as a Teach For America (TFA) corps member -- I'm especially encouraged by some of the report's findings. While "the most productive districts were generally larger and more privileged than the inefficient districts... highly productive districts do vary widely in size, location and demographics." Translation: Poverty does not make productive, efficient education impossible.
After identifying the most productive districts, Boser reached out to identify what they have in common. He found that they:
Why is this encouraging? It's because not one of these "best practices" has anything to do with low-income students' backgrounds. Efficient, productive districts appear to be focused on putting students first in education by improving their schools. They work with their communities, rather than complaining that their communities cannot improve without demographic shifts. They make instruction (teachers, curriculum, other classroom resources) a funding priority and use data to make sure that they're getting the best results they can.
It's probably worth noting (reiterating, in full disclosure: I was a TFA corps member from 2005-2007) that this focus on student performance, instructional quality, working with communities and tracking data has much in common with TFA's teaching approach. Just look at their "Teaching as Leadership" guidelines here.
So what does Boser's study mean for education reform warriors? Should we ignore poverty's effects on educational outcomes? Certainly not. As Boser made clear at the panel discussion, education reform must be comprehensive if it's going to be effective. It's true that it may be difficult to follow these district-level best practices where funding is short. However, the report shows that we can improve education without solving poverty first. Demographics are no excuse for ineffective education spending.
A previous version of this post appeared at Thought News.
Follow Conor Williams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/conorpwilliams
Robert Schwartz: Bringing Teach for America Back to the Core
Ed Schmidt: Why School Architecture Investments Aren't Irresponsible (Part 2)
Furthermore, the way that education funding works is that funds are assigned. The school districts spend what they are allocated. There is absolutely no benefit to spending less than you are assigned. Perhaps in that school year, they made additional equipment purchases because they could. I hate when number are abused like this.
I would encourage people reading
Proofiness: The Dark Arts of Mathematical Deception
200% of Nothing: An Eye Opening Tour Through the Twists and Turns of Math Abuse and Innumeracy
Hopefully if you do, you will not fall for these kinds of mathematical abuses.
After you've had some distance from your first spin around urban schools, why not read and listen, and see if schooling looks different the second time around.
I was just rereading James Herndon (The Way It Spozed to Be) and was laughing at his lampoon of Reagan's educational agenda in 1985. But it was word-for-word what "reformers" want today. At minimum, you need to read some history, and articulate some reason why your favored policies won't fail once again. Then, take a fresh look at Strauss, Ravitch, Darling-Hammond, Larry Cuban and the professional wisdom of teachers who have stuck it out.
A child that is constantly read to, and lives in a rich and supportive environment experiences exponentially sustainable growth that no amount of class can replace. And we're spending more and more on teacher accountability and school-based measures? The obvious (parent/family environment) is never sexy and may sound trite, but it's never wrong. Knowing the productivity patterns of top performing schools is good to know and can be used to improve all schools, but none of it will stick unless we concurrently deal with the 80% time children spend outside of its walls.
http://TheEducatedSociety.com/
The rich and powerful always seem to employ the same tactics. If they can’t destroy it directly, they want to make you afraid of it. The facts are, schools where only 10% or so on free lunch, are educating their students very well. Those with 75% or so on free lunch, struggle to educate their students. What’s the difference… the answer is not the teachers and teaching. Good teachers and teaching CAN make a difference, but running off the experienced teachers in favor of the 90 day wonders is no guarantee of anything but chaos; proof positive that public schools are worthless.
Fix the problem? How about free education beginning at the age of three, tutoring whenever and wherever needed, and a free college education for those who are suited to it?
And finally, this quote…
While good teachers are indeed important, their presence is rarely enough to overcome poverty, an unsafe and unhealthy home environment, little experience with reading, poor nutrition, and destructive peer groups.
--Joshua Eisenstein, Ph.D.
Public education is fixable, but not like this.
http://www.azsba.org/static/index.cfm?contentID=114
"So what does Boser's study mean for education reform warriors? Should we ignore poverty's effects on educational outcomes? Certainly not. As Boser made clear at the panel discussion, education reform must be comprehensive if it's going to be effective."
Poverty still matters. The data from this study show that it's not conclusive, but we should still take it seriously.