Education

The Mother of All Education Reports

Thomas Jefferson High School

The fact that California’s once-shining public educational system is pretty much in the toilet is not in dispute.

California is eighth from the bottom among all US states in math scoring—and that’s only the good news. In reading, California third from the bottom. As for science, the state that gave you Silicon Valley and Cal Tech University has the second lowest science scores in the nation. Only Mississippi is lower.

For the last two decades there has been continuous tinkering with the edges of system and much discussion of who’s to blame for school failure. (Undocumented immigrants, lower-income ethnic parents who “don’t care about their kids’ education”, venal tight-fisted Republicans, spend-thrift, irresponsible democrats, etc. etc.) But the tinkering and the finger-pointing has done little to solve the problem. The schools just got worse.

So eighteen months ago, California’s state politicians did what politicians usually do when they have a humungous problem with lots of political ramifications and no easy solution. They ordered up a study. Thus on September 2005, the multimillion dollar education research project optimistically titled “Getting Down To Facts,” was launched.

The report, which was released last Wednesday, is an interweave 20 different studies involving a bunch of top universities (Stanford, UCLA, Syracuse, UC San Diego and so on) and another bunch of highly regarded research institutes. It turns out to be smart and surprisingly agenda free: There are, however, two crucial problems and six great things you should know about what is being billed as the mother of all school reports:

Problem number one: It’s freaking huge—upwards of 2000 pages long. (The executive summary alone is 72 pages.) This means the chances of lawmakers reading “Getting Down To the Facts”—even the Readers Digest Condensed Version—are somewhere between zero and You-Must-Be-Kidding. So will it turn out to be another $3 million paperweight?

Problem number two: It doesn’t say much that those who are paying attention didn’t already know. Of course, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Common sense and facts haven’t prevailed in the recent past regarding California education. So, it’s always possible that this expensive, highly pedigreed report will slap a few legislators and school board types upside the head and precipitate some action. (If anybody reads it, that is.)

As for the actual content of the report, I’ll be going deeper into certain areas in coming weeks, but for those of you who don’t see yourself downloading all 2000 pages for easy weekend reading, here are six of the essential highlights:

1. The problem is not with immigrants or ethnic minorities. Let’s get that out of the way from the get-go. The school system is broken and it’s failing everybody and this report has the numbers to prove it.

2. Okay, yes, California is way on the low side when it come to per-pupil spending, throwing more money at the problem ain’t going to stop the golden state’s race to the bottom. Without fundamental reform—a page-one-rewrite, as we like to call it in the screenwriting trade—additional funding, while needed, will be throwing good money after bad.

3. Dump the lemons. A theme repeating through many of the studies is the difficulty of getting rid of weak or incompetent teachers that, unless changed, say the researchers, will continue to hog-tie all efforts to institute real reforms—either at a micro or a macro level. Dump the le

4. District expenditures are rarely allocated on a What Works basis
. California school districts spend millions upon millions of dollars on expensive educational programs that are put into place, then abruptly replaced on a haphazard basis without any real assessment of what has any measurable positive effect and what doesn’t.

5. The state’s school and district data systems are by-and-large a joke
. Nobody at the state’s biggest districts—Los Angeles Unified topping that list—seems to have the ability to quantify much of anything, much less the capacity to put those numbers into any meaningful and shareable form.

6. California has a bunch of Beat-the-Odds schools< /strong> that are doing well. Analyzing what they’re doing right might be a good idea. DUH!

There’s more. But that’s a beginning.

Happy weekend.

11 Comments

  • Overview Page 51 – “shows essentially no relationship between spending and student outcomes.” – “Spending differences are not clearly related to achievement patterns.”

    Page 54 Students of poor parents do poorlyOf the 491 schools with fewer than 10 percent of students eligible for subsidized lunch, only 11 have school APIs of less than 800; while of the 715 with at least 90 percent of students eligible, only one school has an API of at least 800.

    “There were 3 million children, age 5-17, living in California who spoke a language other than English, representing 44 percent of the school-age population”

    Do you think that this English problem might have a small effect on our schools, teachers or ranking?

    Schools that beat the Odds Analysis – pg 65+:
    Tutored kids at lunch, Saturday and after school who were following behind.
    Control over hiring and firing of teachers
    Parental involvement
    Communication with parents (even in non English speakers)
    High Expectations of students and teachers
    Strict attendance requirement and follow-up
    Reading is crucial

    http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance-studies.htm

    Happy reading

  • “Control over the hiring and firing of teachers”
    You mean like that charter school in LA that fired two teachers after they complained against the policy of the Principal that teaching 5th and 6th graders about Emmet Till would be inappropriate since Till was accused of “Sexually Harrassing” a white girl? Think that place will be attractive to talented pedagogues?

    “Shows essentially no relationship between funding and student outcomes.”
    Oh really? So the fact that they spend more per capita in Beverly Hills or Irvine has nothing to do with their success rates? Jonathon Kozol likes to say that when he hears that from people who live in the suburbs around NYC he responds, “Funny, it seems to work fine in your District!”

    “Students of Poor Parents do Poorly”
    Alert the media! And, as late as 1960 a majority of Americans did not have a HS Diploma. Yes, I’m sure that
    ESL is one of the difficulties but I put it to you that the evidence may suggest that it probably means poor districts need more resources and that means more money.

    There is no doubt that reforms have to go along with funding but I find it interesting that these indices all seem to coincide with Prop 13 and that when I was in public schools here (and not in an affluent district but a working class area in SE LA County) the state’s per pupil spending was in the top five in the country.

    (BTW the top most of those years was Utah. Guess the Mormons knew that you had to spend a buck or two)

    Of course when I was in school we had a pool of very talented people whose optionds were pretty much limited to teaching if they wanted to use their college education. I think they were called “Women”.

    Alas those days are gone and it seems strange, to put it mildly, that we treat teachers no better than garbage men (maybe worse actually) and pay starting prison guards (requiring HS Diplomas) more than starting teachers (requiring equivalent of MAs). And we’re surprised that we might get some lemons.

    I’m surprised we get anyone good. No one goes into teaching to get rich. But they shouldn’t have to take a vow of poverty either. And they sure as hell shouldn’t be treated like shit!

  • “Students of Poor Parents do Poorly”

    Let’s reword that.

    Students will be less successful in education if the genes affecting their learning ability come from poor parents who are poor because they are stupid.

    Short of sterilizing stupid people, the obvious solution is to have different types of schools and goals for those kids.

  • Hey, Pokey, at least I see you’re doing some reading, which I fear is more than too many lawmakers will do.

    But as for interpretation, you have to read a little more. Yeah, in more affluent areas the scores are better. Gee. How surprising. The schools in richer areas have more resources, more AP classes, more student aids to help teachers in elementary schools, more fully credentialed teachers, an adequate supply of books….yadda, yadda, yadda. The list is long. Some of this is due to the fact that in, the upper income neighborhoods, parent organizations that are very active in raising money to answer their schools’ needs. But the report—and any kind of anecdotal observation gathered by those of us who’ve reported on schools—detailed widespread inequality of allocation of resources across big school districts like LAUSD. (The researchers also pointed out that some schools have been neglected for so long that they’re going to need more money right now to get to the starting line.)

    Added to the inequality of resources, is the fact that lots of poor kids, like it or not, live in chaotic, stressed out households—and neighborhoods— that are not conducive to success at school. Many of those kids are amazing and succeed anyway, but it’s an uphill swim. We can sit around and blame parents and/or the poor communities all we want, and that gets us where exactly? There are more productive approaches to take than simply placing blame.

    As commenter Professor X said earlier, when poor parents are brought into the process within a smaller school structure, suddenly and miraculously they become involved parents—and their kids do better. Most parents who cross the border from Mexico—legally or no—will tell you they come for two reasons: better jobs AND better opportunities for their kids. They don’t uproot themselves and take incredible risks because they don’t care about their kids’ education. When there is genuine outreach to the parents on the part of an enlightened school administration, this becomes entirely clear. This is why Connie Rice, in her gang report, says that if we are to keep kids out of the street, the schools have to be integrated into the ecology of a community. They can’t continue to operate as separate ivory tower entities that look at the community’s problems and say, “Not Our Fault/Not our problem.” Fault isn’t the issue. We’re all in this together. Until we figure that out as a culture, problems like failing schools and overcrowded prisons will continued to seem “unsolvable” and somebody else’s fault.

  • Richard, I quite agree with you about the urgent necessity of valuing—and paying—teachers. On the other hand, while the starting pay for a rookie prison guard is higher than most experienced high school teachers, there is still an enormous problem with getting rid of bad teachers. I hear this over and over and over again from the great and dedicated teachers and school administrators. Certainly teachers need and deserve union protection against the firing whims of administrators, but in the state of California that protection has now moved from productive to over-the-top obstructive. Everybody working in or reporting on California education has a list of truly god-awful stories regarding teachers kept in schools when, in any other profession (except maybe law enforcement and….you know….politics) that person would be long GONE—and deservedly so. In LA, the union (UTLA) simply recoils at any kind of accountability on the part of teachers. And it’s simply no longer okay.

    (BTW, I understand from a friend reporting on it that there may be a lot more to that story of the two charter school teachers, and that the LA Times took the easy route and didn’t dig deeper. But I haven’t reported on it myself so I can’t say for sure)

  • Celeste it is probably a chicken or egg kind of thing but everyone wants better teachers and, I suspect, even members of the Teacher’s union want to weed out the bad ones. But when you blamed for everything it isn’t hard to understand the defensiveness there.It is a natural reaction. Look at the Police Union. Hell, look at the State Bar. Remember when they tried to ban lawyer jokes? A survey by CALIFORNIA LAWYER showed that 2/3 of those surveyed said they’d go into another profession if they had a chance to do it over again and lawyers get a lot more income and public respect than teachers.

    Honestly, I don’t have an idea how you get dedicated people to go into the worst schools and try to make a difference. “Teaach For America” is a great idea but they have an apalling drop-out rate. Trouble is “Mr Holland” and “Mr Chips” are fiction. And reality can really bite.

  • It’s all about case management. Urban schools need to edcuate “the whole child” — not just at the elementary level but all the way up until that college acceptance letter (and appropriate financial aid) is in hand. And to do that effectively, urban schools really need to focus on serving not just students but families. And to do that, well, that takes small classes, incredibly dedicated and talented staff at all levels, articulation with social services, and a heck of a lot more money for all the enhancements that people have advocated for elsewhere in this blog. I know, I know, it sounds impossible. But one first step toward getting might be educating urban parents on what is possible in a school and empowering them to organize themselves to demand that their kids’ school have the resources and personnel to pull that dream off.

  • Nonetheless, unfortunately we have places in the world, where not everyone has an chance to obtain this formal type of education. The opportunities which are provided are greatly limited. Occasionally you will discover not enough resources to supply schooling. Furthermore due to the fact parents want their kids to aid them work in factories, have odd jobs, or just do farm work.

Leave a Comment