New Education Sector Report: Waiting to be Won Over: Teachers Speak on the Profession, Unions, and Reform

In the world of educational policy, where the chatter of policy wonks and policymakers often edges out the voices of key stakeholders, it is refreshing to see a publication such as "Waiting to be Won Over" (Education Sector, 2008), which shares the opinions of teachers on a wide range of issues facing K-12 education today. Want to know about teachers' opinions on incentive pay? Burnout? Teacher retention? Unions? Then dig into this great report. A link to the report is provided below.

Use of Cost-Benefit and Cost-Effectiveness in K-12 Education

Hooray for the new Center for Benefit-Cost Studies of Education at Teachers College, Columbia University. The Center is led by the very able Henry Levin, the William Heard Kilpatrick Professor of Economics and Education at Teachers College, Columbia University, and the David Jacks Professor Emeritus of Higher Education and Economics at Stanford University, and Clive Belfield, an Assistant Professor in the Economics Department at Queens College, the City University of New York, and widely published author in the economics of education. Levin and Belfield most recently contributed to an examination of the economic losses associated with high school dropouts in California.

This focus on cost-benefit (and cost-effectiveness) studies in K-12 education is long overdue. Standards-based reforms come in many expensive forms these days, ranging from school choice and charter schools to school-based management and year-round schedules. Most educational reforms face constraints in the availability of budgetary and other resources, and limiting their evaluation to educational outcomes without considering their costs provides an inadequate basis for decision-making. Both costs and effectiveness must be known in order to make good educational decisions. Cost-effectiveness analysis is a proven evaluation tool designed to assist in comparing alternative programs or policies when resources are limited and providing guidelines on which of the alternatives provides the most impact relative to cost.

Popular in other fields, such as health care, cost-effectiveness analysis is, unfortunately, rarely used in education. A panel of experts convened by the New York State Board of Regents in 1995 identified three factors hampering use of cost effectiveness evaluation in education. One of those barriers was the lack of incentives for superintendents, principals, and other stakeholders to use cost effectiveness in decision making (NY State Board of Regents, 1996). Levin (2001) has also pointed to policymakers’ lack of demand for cost-effectiveness analyses as a reason for their paucity in educational evaluation.

Policy could be an effective tool to promote the use of cost-effectiveness analysis. The federal government could incentivize its use through inducements, such as discretionary grants to support evaluation activities for the implementation of innovative programs and policies. This approach has proven effective in promoting “scientifically-based research” and rigorous evaluation through discretionary grants under the No Child Left Behind Act. However, federal grants provide a very small percentage of school revenues and, therefore, have minimal impact on creating a widespread demand for cost-effectiveness analysis.

States, on the other hand, fund a considerable share of local education and exercise strong authority over local spending. State policy on use of cost-effectiveness analysis could have a substantial impact on school district practices. Working on this issue with a powerful bipartisan public policy group such as the National Governors Association or the Education Commission of the States might provide the lever to ensure that cost-effectiveness analysis becomes a widely accepted technique of educational evaluation.

Educational decision-makers need to understand the relationship between policy expenditures and student achievement outcomes in order to make the most informed decisions on how to allocate funding. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in program evaluation holds the potential to make considerable contributions to informed public discussion on educational policy and resource allocation.

The Economics of Early Childhood

Economic analyses of early childhood programs are hardly new: the High/Scope Perry Preschool Program cost-benefit analysis is an obvious example. But a new study by the RAND Corporation, "The Economics of Early Childhood: What the Dismal Science Has to Say About Investing in Children," aims to serve as a primer for policy-makers in the use of cost/benefits/rate-of-return analysis in making early childhood policy. A link to the study report is posted below.

National Mathematics Advisory Panel Final Report

This week the final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel was released. (See link on this page.) The dominant theme of this report is to put “first things first:” which includes streamlining mathematics curriculum in Grades PreK–8 and emphasizing a "well-defined set of the most critical topics in the early grades"; blending research-based instructional approaches to building conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, and automatic recall of facts and balancing teacher-centered and student-centered approaches; rigorously evaluating initiatives to attract and prepare prospective mathematics teachers and retain effective teachers; and improving the quality of NAEP and state assessments, placing increased emphasis on the most critical knowledge and skills leading to Algebra. The report clearly identifies a path to prepare students for introductory algebra and advanced math: students should become proficient with whole numbers, fractions, and aspects of geometry and measurement.

NYC Adopts Incentive Compensation Plan

It's news when the nation's largest school district--New York City--announces a teacher incentive plan that would give cash bonuses to teachers at some of the city’s high-needs schools that raise student test scores. Union officials supported the plan because it gives the incentive bonus to the whole school and not just to individual teachers who raise student test scores. NYC's move comes in the midst of much discussion in D.C. about performance pay for teachers. Notably, House education committee Chairman George Miller included performance pay in his committee’s discussion draft for renewal of NCLB.

Those interested in this policy topic are advised to visit the National Center for Performance Incentives , a national research and development center for state and local policy at Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College. Under the leadership of Matthew Springer, this center sets out to answer one of the most contested questions in public education today: Do financial incentives for teachers, administrators, and schools affect the quality of teaching and learning? The Center is hosting a national conference on this topic in late February 2008, which promises to be very, very interesting.

Improvement in Student Performance Slows Since NCLB

Is NCLB really raising student achievement as its proponents argue? Fuller et. al. report that test-score improvement among 4th graders in 12 states has fallen off in reading and slowed in math since the enactment of NCLB. Unlike a recent report from the Center on Education Policy, which found consistent and significant increases in state-test scores since NCLB became law in early 2002, this research study draws on data from both state assessments and the federally administered NAEP.

A link to the study, published in the July issue of Educational Researcher, can be found below.

America Competes?

On August 9, President Bush signed into law H.R. 2272, the "America COMPETES Act" or the "America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act." This bill authorizes various programs at the National Science Foundation and the Departments of Energy, Commerce, and Education intended to strengthen education and research in the United States related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. This bill shares many of the goals of the President's American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), a strategy designed to maintain America's competitive position in the global marketplace by strengthening its scientific education and research, improving its technological enterprise, attracting the world's best and brightest workers, and providing 21st century job training.

This bill authorizes the President's Math Now proposal, which many have already disparagingly described as 'Reading First does mathematics.' Math Now focuses on the use of research-based instructional practices to prepare students for rigorous math courses in middle and high school, particularly Algebra I and II. Given appropriate allocations, Math Now will be implemented through federal grants that will flow to the states and then to local school districts to improve K-9 instruction.

While this focus on mathematics is certainly needed, I echo the concerns expressed recently by Chester Finn and Diane Ravitch (see link below to Beyond the Basics) that America's economic strength and innovation also spring from students receiving a rich education in other subjects, such as literature, history, and the arts: "America's true competitive edge over the long haul is not its technical prowess but its creativity, its imagination, its inventiveness. And those attributes are best inculcated not by skill-drill but through liberal arts and sciences, liberally defined."