|
CORRESPONDENCE: Readers Respond
Teacher Certification; Adequacy Studies; National Standards; Restructuring Questions; Spotlight on Newark; Kids and Exercise
Teacher Certification
Kane, Rockoff, and
Staiger’s findings (“Photo Finish: Certification Doesn’t
Guarantee a Winner,” research, Winter 2007), supported by other recent research
(including my own), are persuasive in suggesting that certification
requirements do little to create or identify effective teachers. The
findings might have been strengthened if measures of teacher ability had
been included in the analysis, because the alternatively certified teachers
in the study, from Teach For America (TFA) and the NYC Teaching Fellows
program, represent high-achieving students from the nation’s elite
universities. Thus one might interpret the finding of little difference
between regularly certified teachers and their more pedigreed peers to show
that teacher certification requirements compensate for greater intellect or
better overall undergraduate academic preparation.
The wide variation in quality within groups should
come as no surprise, though documenting it with sound research is helpful.
What is unexpected, and of concern to those who believe recruiting
better-quality undergraduates will improve teacher quality, is that by year
three the TFA alumni aren’t doing substantially better than their
regularly certified counterparts.
This thoughtful research raises important policy
questions. Can we do without certification requirements? This study
doesn’t answer that question. What we really want to know is how to
create effective teachers. If, as the authors suggest, classroom experience
and not certification is linked to effective teaching, we might consider
moving teacher preparation programs toward a model of more K–12
classroom experience, and away from coursework.
Laura M. Desimone
Assistant Professor of Public Policy and Education
Vanderbilt University
Thank you for
featuring research on the fundamental role of teachers in the achievement
of New York City’s students in “Photo Finish.” The Board
of Regents and the New York State Education Department are committed to
improving the quality of teaching for the benefit of all our students.
We agree that multiple pathways to certification can be
effective at recruiting teachers who can improve student achievement. The
conclusion, however, that “certification matters little” is not
supported by the analysis presented. By using teachers’ certification
status when hired, rather than when providing instruction, the authors
cannot assess the impact of certification on student achievement. Because
of state requirements, all teachers hired without certification would have
been on a pathway toward certification and many did become certified during
the study period. In addition, because certification is required, it is
virtually impossible to explore what would happen in its absence. For
example, ill-prepared individuals who do not attempt to teach because
certification is required, but who could become teachers if certification
were not required, are not represented in the group labeled uncertified in
the study.
The Board of Regents has always required teachers
without certification to be making satisfactory progress toward
certification in order to remain employed. Teachers receive
“transitional” certificates that permit them to teach for up to
three years provided they receive school-based mentoring and make
satisfactory progress toward full certification. Similar requirements
applied to individuals with temporary licenses prior to the elimination of
that pathway. The preparation and induction of these individuals likely
would be quite different if certification were not required.
Johanna Duncan-Poitier
Deputy Commissioner
New York State Education Department
Adequacy Studies
Jim Guthrie
and Matthew Springer’s article “Courtroom Alchemy” (features, Winter 2007) presents a
mistaken analysis of education-funding adequacy studies. First, the authors
dismiss the pressure schools face from the federal No Child Left Behind
Act, which requires near-universal student proficiency less than seven
years from now. The authors infer solely from cost data that states with
currently higher test scores on exams such as the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) should not need significant new resources.
Second, the article provides a figure that displays the
supposed differences in instructional personnel per 1,000 students across
eight state studies to indicate a weakness in the overall professional
judgment approach, which relies on the judgement of a panel of educators.
The figure fails to account for several factors:
Every state
has its own unique accountability system with unique standards. The level
of resources required to meet those standards necessarily differs as well.
The panelists
consulted in each state make different decisions about how resources should
be deployed.
These
panelists make different tradeoffs regarding the personnel required to
educate at-risk, English Language Learners (ELL), or special-education
students. These tradeoffs can result in higher or lower staffing numbers
for regular-education students.
Differences in
average school size across states can have an impact on the number of
overall personnel that panels might identify.
Finally, the authors’ analysis equates the
validity of adequacy studies with a universal, one-size-fits-all answer to
education funding. Such an easy answer does not exist. Instead, each
state’s unique circumstances, standards, history, demographics, and
geography all argue for education policy decisions to remain within the
state and local purview.
John Augenblick
Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Inc.
Guthrie and Springer respond:
John Augenblick proffers two arguments in support of
his preferred method, professional judgment, for determining revenue levels
presumed to provide an adequate educational opportunity. Regrettably,
neither of his arguments addresses our principal criticism of professional
judgment: the educator panels he routinely convenes employ no science in
their estimates of needed revenues, but rather just guesses based on their
experience and biases.
National Standards
Regarding the
forum, “National Standards: Should the Federal Government Tell
Schools What to Teach?” (Fall 2006), the greater the centralization
of school decisions nationwide, the lower is the possibility of excellence
in academic achievement. If there were a “single provider” of
education policy decisions, the country would suffer a disastrous loss of
competition. It would become an inevitable race to the bottom. The only
effective education lobbyists would be the well-funded national ones, with
their own narrow, intolerant agendas.
Consider what the federal government has already done
to produce excellent education in the country. Nothing much. After billions
of dollars and millions of words over decades of studies and programs,
there is no definitive best teaching or learning method coming from the
federal government. The slogan “No Child Left Behind” is a
perfect example. It focuses on the bottom of the barrel, those who
presumably are “left behind,” perhaps 10 percent of the
population. The other 90 percent of students and parents are by definition
“left outside” the concerns of Washington’s bureaucrats.
Carl Olson
Founder, Textbook Trust
Restructuring Questions
Michael
Petrilli (“The Cure: Will NCLB’s Restructuring Wonder Drug
Prove Meaningless?” what next, Fall
2006) shines a spotlight on a critical issue in the implementation of No
Child Left Behind: the dearth of outside education providers ready to jump
in to help states and districts deal with the increasing number of schools
eligible for restructuring.
Contracting with for-profit and nonprofit school
management organizations—or working with them to reopen failing
schools as charter schools—could be a powerful
“transplant” approach. However, two factors restrict this
solution. First, turning around existing schools is a far different
business from creating them from scratch. Many organizations are wrestling
with whether restructuring and conversion opportunities fit within their
mission. Some nonprofit charter management organizations (CMOs) have been
launched specifically to respond to this opportunity, including Education
for Change, in Oakland; others, such as Mastery Charter Schools, in
Philadelphia, partner with districts to extend their impact. Organizations
must determine whether the opportunity presented by restructuring (which
may involve free or low-cost facilities and other incentives from the
district) is worth the loss of the autonomy and flexibility they believe
are essential for improving student achievement.
Second, the demand for school management organizations
exceeds supply for a reason. Most have chosen to grow slowly, to ensure
consistently high-quality academic outcomes for students across their
schools. NewSchools Venture Fund has supported nonprofit CMOs across the
country—including nine that were not included in the article’s
graphic—and collectively run another 50 schools. In total, the 14
CMOs we support today have nearly 100 charter schools open this fall and
expect to manage 175 schools by the 2008–09 school year. We believe
that by taking a careful approach to scale, these charter school systems
will have a greater impact on public education in the long term.
Julie Petersen
Communications Manager
NewSchools Venture Fund
Spotlight on Newark
Your essay on
Mayor Cory Booker’s aspirations for change in the Newark Public
Schools District (“Home Is Where the Heart Is,” features, Fall 2006) was
encouraging in one respect but discouraging in many others. It is extremely
important to have a chief executive running our city who is clearly
committed to helping all children achieve in school and reach for a higher
standard of living. I, as superintendent of the district, and a veteran of
38 years, welcome Mayor Booker’s voice, support, and leadership. On
the other hand, it was disturbing to read a depiction of our schools as
“still a mess.”
While we have much more to do, there are several areas
in which the district is improving. Over the last four years, in language
arts our 4th-grade students improved from a passing rate of 52 percent to
70 percent, and in math for the same period, from 31 to 71.5 percent. From
1999 to 2005, high-school graduation rates increased from 45.7 to 75.9
percent. During the same period, the number of high-school students
enrolled in AP classes quadrupled.
In 2004 and 2005, the Newark district received
commendations for good management from the Association of School Business
Officials International (ASBO) in Financial Reporting. We also received a
Facilities Master Award for Excellence in the Facility Operations Program
from ASBO for two consecutive years, making Newark the only district in the
country to have achieved that distinction.
It is a disservice to our newly elected mayor to place
the onus for “saving Newark schools” on one individual. It will
require resources and a collaborative effort involving all students,
teachers, parents, administrators, and other citizens to ensure that our
children gain the necessary skills to thrive in their own community and to
prepare them to compete globally.
Our district is not
a mess. It would only seem so to one who has not
taken the time to investigate.
Marion A. Bolden
Superintendent
Newark Public Schools
Kids and Exercise
Thanks to
“Don’t Sweat It” (features, Fall 2006) and “Not Your Father’s PE” (research, Fall 2006), we now know
that top-down solutions to child obesity offer minimal benefit. A
“bottom-up” approach would be to change the way we fund
schooling. We fund systems; we do not fund students. Because districts tend
to add classrooms to existing structures as enrollment grows, we have large
schools.
District consolidation also put us on the road to
supersize schools. In 1931, there were 120,000 school districts. By 2000,
there were fewer than 15,000. University of Chicago professor Christopher
Berry (“School Inflation,” research, Fall 2004) studied
the period of greatest school-district consolidation, 1930–70. Berry
found a consistent correlation of .70 between school size and district
size, across states. Big districts have big schools.
How do big schools lead to inactive, overweight kids?
To go to and from big, consolidated schools—often at remote
sites—children wait for and sit in buses instead of walking or
bicycling to a nearby school and playing in the schoolyard before and after
the bell. High schoolers and middle schoolers are doubly afflicted: when
they finally arrive at their very large schools, they find that the most
popular sports are dominated by elite athletes. A glance at almost any
high-school annual of the 1920s through the 1950s (before the final wave of
consolidation) will reveal a lot of skinny young people, small senior
classes, and wide participation in the major sports.
Were we to fund students rather than systems, such
schools—and skinny kids—would make a comeback.
Tom Shuford
Retired Public School Teacher
Lenoir, North Carolina
For combating
kids’ weight problems, K–12 dance education offers unique
potential. Merging mind and body, dance education can contribute to
students’ intellectual growth in many academic subjects. Student
dance making can offer some of what reading and writing
offer—fantasy, storytelling, and performer-audience connection.
Dance is a way to cope with stress. In dances they
make, kids can embody troubling ideas, hold them up to scrutiny, play with
them, and, consequently, make them less threatening.
Kids need to get hooked on a physical activity in which
they burn calories in physical education and that they can pursue outside
of school. Breaking and krumping became popular on the streets, Mad Hot Ballroom engaged kids in
and out of school, and So You Think You Can
Dance drew huge audiences. Let kids make their
own dances, compete, and find dances in their neighborhoods or on TV to
demonstrate to classmates.
Judith Lynne Hanna
Senior Research Scholar
University of Maryland
Bob Cullen
has done a fine job of identifying some of the challenges physical
education teachers face. In “Don’t Sweat It,” Mr. Cullen
implies that it is nearly impossible to have a permanent positive impact on
the health and fitness of the students given the current graduation
requirements for physical education, the attitudes of the kids and parents
toward PE, social and cultural factors, the declining fitness levels of
physical education teachers, and the low enthusiasm among teachers. Here in
Miami-Dade Public Schools, we must add to this most difficult equation low
family incomes, poor nutritional habits of students, extreme heat, no use
of the indoor gymnasium, large classes, lack of adequate fountains for
students to keep hydrated, and lack of classroom space.
Bennett Packman
Physical Education Teacher
Miami-Dade County Public Schools
|