Recently I read an Education Week article previewing a book, The Secret of TSL, by management expert William G. Ouchi, which lays out the case why the key to improving student achievement is lightening teaching loads. In his new book, Ouchi defines TSL (total student load) as the number of students that teachers encounter each academic term and the number of papers they grade.

In his study of 442 schools in eight large urban districts that have devolved power to local principals Ouchi finds that these schools have reduced TSL in measurable ways. Additionally, these schools tend to have higher passing rates on state exams. Ouchi argues that lowering TSL increases the likelihood that a student will have more informal contact with their teachers and that will motivate the student to keep on going, which is different than simply reducing class sizes.

Ouchi’s study provides new quantitative evidence suggesting how much lower teaching loads might matter for schools. The study also deepens the debate on school decentralization, where school districts transfer power to local principals. The study found that local principals empowered by this new authority often take steps to lower teaching loads. They hire more teachers, eliminate support staff such as front office attendants and roll social studies and English classes into an integrated humanities class.

While prominent education leaders such a New York City Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein and current U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan have embraced the idea, decentralization as a strategy has produced mixed results. Decentralization was deemed successful in the 80,000-student Edmonton Canadian school system, yet it has provided mixed results in the Chicago school district. Study skeptics also argue that Ouchi overvalues management and underemphasizes content and teaching methods in his work.

Studies such as Mr. Ouchi’s are helpful in the debate on how to improve education outcomes. However, these studies should always be taken in context. Ouchi’s study examined exclusively urban districts, which means that the study’s results are not necessarily applicable to rural and suburban districts. Questions must also be asked about the demographic and socioeconomic of the cases Ouchi was studying. At The Improve Group, emphasis on scope of these studies are utterly important. Future work in evaluating education policies should strongly consider these issues before making policy decisions.

I would appreciate comments on these topics.

Posted by admin at 09:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Within the current debates on education policy, there is widespread agreement among teachers, policymakers and testing experts that the current multiple-choice-dominated K-12 tests used in the United States are in need of improvement. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s recent announcement that he will set aside $350 million of the $4.35 billion in discretionary aid to create Race to the Top Fund to improve assessments has these stakeholders debating not if they can improve assessments, but how they can improve assessments.

Testing experts such as Randy E. Bennett of the Educational Testing Service say that the money could help revise tests that would better measure students’ critical thinking skills and improve teacher and student engagement in the assessment process. However, such a revision may force federal officials to rethink the current parameters around assessment and accountability in the current No Child Left Behind (NCLB)law.

Multiple choice tests have largely become analogous with the NCLB law. One reason why multiple-choice tests are prevalent is that they can efficiently determine whether a student can assemble discrete pieces of knowledge across a subject. The results are typically highly reliable, which is desirable for the high-stakes nature of NCLB tests.

However, multiple-choice tests are not ideal for identifying whether students can take multiple pieces of domain-specific knowledge and analyze, integrate and apply them in unfamiliar contexts. International student assessments such as the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) include such items. Assessments like the PISA measure abilities that are common in applied fields such as medicine where examinees are required to diagnose and treat patients. A drawback of performance-based assessments is that they are scored by humans, which raise the costs of examination.

I anticipate much debate on how to use the funds provided via the Race to the Top Fund. Questions that may be part of this debate:

• How broadly the material will be examined?
• How to balance critical thinking skills to basic knowledge assessment?
• What will be the length of the assessment?

Also likely to be debated are ideas such as the extent of technology-based testing and whether revisions to these assessments will need revisions to application of NCLB.

The Improve Group has conducted multiple assessments in the areas of education and we have found that a comprehensive approach to assessments is generally best when measuring student outcomes. However, a debate about improving current testing methods provides helpful opportunities for both discussion and analysis.

I would appreciate hearing any ideas you may have regarding revisions to current educational assessment methods.

Posted by admin at 09:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Educational data systems, long relegated to as a low priority in school districts and states, are now set to receive $250 million in federal stimulus funding.

Educational experts and President Barack Obama’s new emphasis on data systems say that the increased funding means that it is time for states and districts to take the next step: figuring out how to use the information they collect on student performance to improve student achievement.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act includes $250 million to the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences for competitive grants for statewide data systems, not just for K-12 information, but also for higher education and workforce information. The department plans to award half that money in June or July, with the remainder in September and October.

Additionally, the stimulus legislation requires states to establish a statewide longitudinal data system and take steps to improve the collection of data as one of the four “assurances” governors must make when they apply for their share of the $53.6 billion State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. The U.S. Education Department has recently issued guidelines that a state will not receive 33 percent of its full share until the department approves the state’s plan to meet the four assurances.

As noted in my previous posts on educational data systems, many states have much work to do to be able to track individual students’ educational progress in a way that can improve student achievement. There appears to be significant opportunities for collecting and analyzing data in developing strategic plans and evaluating current criteria in order to meet that goal. The Improve Group has worked with multiple clients on measuring student outcomes over time and I can see the demand for such work increasing in the future. Nevertheless, what criteria and methods should be considered? I would appreciate hearing from you on this subject.

Posted by admin at 02:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

President Barack Obama has now signed into law the $787 billion economic stimulus package that includes $115 billion to public education. This amount is nearly double the U.S. Department of Education’s entire $59.2 billion discretionary budget for fiscal 2009. The $115 billion appropriation to education includes $5 billion that is under the control of the U.S. Secretary of Education to give to states as bonus grants for meeting key performance measures in education.

The $5 billion incentive fund, which is within the $53.6 billion state fiscal stabilization fund that is part of the education appropriation, would include $650 million for innovation grants to school districts that could be models for best practices. The innovation money would go to local districts, nonprofit organizations, or consortiums of school districts.

The incentive fund money won't be available until 2010, after states are able to put their stabilization funds (which, depending on the state, have included early-childhood education, after-school programs, professional-development money, and actual school staff) in place. To get a grant, a state has to show how it is in compliance with a few measures under the No Child Left Behind Act already required under the law. They also have to put in place a statewide data system to measure student progress and make sure their standards lead students to college or other postsecondary training.

However, there are no clear criteria on how states qualify to receive the incentive money and what states need to do once they receive the money. The Administration argues that the incentive funds will encourage schools to find ways to have students be more competitive globally, while critics state that the lack of explicit criteria does not encourage significant educational reform.

It is probable that specific criteria will need to be developed to maintain transparency and accountability in the distribution and use of these funds. This seems to be a great opportunity for evaluators, nonprofits, government and the education community to come together to develop and implement such criteria for both the short and long term. I would really be interested in your opinions and ideas on how those criteria can be developed.

NOTE: On March 10, 2009, at 1pm eastern time the U.S. Department of Education will present a webinar on the Economic Stimulus & Powering Through the Recession. Discussion will center around what the stimulus package will mean for K-12 budgets. Click here to register for this event.

Posted by admin at 03:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A recent study released by Mathamatica Policy Research finds that students who have teachers certified through alternative-training programs do no worse in mathematics or reading achievement than students whose teachers have been certified by traditional teacher education programs.

The study, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences, also found no correlation between teacher effectiveness and the amount of coursework that teachers received as part of their alternative or traditional teacher-training programs.

The Mathematica study compared students from the same schools who were randomly assigned to teachers from alternative-certification programs or regular teacher education programs. It tracked 2,600 students in 63 schools in six states.

The researchers stated that since most alternative-certification programs are not very selective in picking candidates, they chose to examine those types of programs. Similarly, most traditional teacher education programs are not very selective.

The study found that while the amount of coursework required by training programs varies greatly within alternative-certification programs and within traditional programs, the number of course hours did not affect student achievement. In fact, students of alternative-certified teachers scored higher than students of their traditionally certified counterparts as often as they scored lower.

It is clear that more evaluation work will be needed to examine the diversity in the coursework and the uniqueness of teaching candidates of specific programs. For example, a recent study of teacher education of New York City programs finds that while there are many programs, the characteristics of the programs are quite similar. It will be interesting to learn what specific characteristics lead to effective teachers, especially in measuring the effectiveness of well-known alternative certification programs such as Teach For America and the New Teacher Project. Join in the debate on the effectiveness of particular teacher certification programs by sending us your opinions and ideas.

Posted by admin at 02:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Education Week recently released the results regarding the status of schools’ ability to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) under the No Child Left Behind Act in the 2007-2008 school year. According to the data, nearly 30,000 schools in the United States failed to make AYP in the 2007-2008 school year. For states with comparable data for the 2006-2007 school year, the number of schools increased by 28 percent. Half those schools missed their achievement goals for two or more years, which places one in five of the nation’s public schools in some stage of the federally mandated process designed to improve student achievement. Furthermore, 3,559 schools (four percent of all schools rated for AYP) are facing more serious interventions under NCLB in the current school year, which is double the number from a year ago.

Under NCLB, a series of interventions to improve student performance begins to be mandated for schools that fail to make AYP in three consecutive years. The series starts with allowing students to transfer to another public school after three consecutive years failing to make AYP and progresses to making major changes in school staff or turning the schools into charter schools after five consecutive years failing to make AYP.

Critics state that these results were inevitable since the law’s requirement that all students are proficient in reading and math by the end of 2013-2014 school year is unrealistic. Supporters of the requirement were in favor of the requirement was necessary to spur many schools to take steps to improve and that the relatively modest number of schools subjected to the law’s sanctions suggests that schools are making those improvements.

Education Week notes that twenty-three states decided to set low achievement targets in the early years of NCLB, assuming they would be able to ramp up student achievement by the 2007-2008 school year. However, many of those states experienced sharp increases of schools failing to reach AYP in the 2007-2008 school year. This data strongly suggests state policy decisions can skew the results.

At the Improve Group, we have conducted evaluations in education regarding student achievement and behaviors. Our evaluations have uncovered interesting results that straight quantitative data cannot detect due to our comprehensive, mixed-methods approach that addresses socioeconomic and cultural factors as well as school quality factors. Future work in evaluating education policies should strongly consider these issues before making policy decisions.

Posted by admin at 11:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

According to a recently released progress report, states must still achieve significant progress in collecting data before they have the kinds of data systems that will help drive student improvement. While states have achieved significant progress in building longitudinal data systems (recorded data over time) over the past three years, any momentum built up through that progress could be halted through anticipated budget cuts is this deteriorating economic environment.

The report was released by the Data Quality Campaign, a 3-year old national effort funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to catalyze states to build high-quality, accessible, longitudinal data systems that can track student information and achievement from early-childhood education through college. The campaign identified 10 key components to accomplish this task, from having student identifiers to track academic progress to keeping track of each course a student completed. The campaign created the key components to answer the following policy questions:

1. Which schools produce the strongest academic growth for their students?
2. What achievement levels in middle school indicate that a student is on track to succeed in rigorous courses in high school?
3. What is each school's graduation rate, according to the 2005 National Governor's Association graduation compact?
4. What high school performance indicators (e.g., enrollment in rigorous courses or performance on state tests) are the best predictors of students' success in college or the workplace?
5. What percentage of high school graduates who go on to college take remedial courses?
6. Which teacher preparation programs produce the graduates whose students have the strongest academic growth?

Multiple components need to be collected to analyze thoroughly a certain policy question. For example, all but two states match test records for individual students; there is much progress that needs to be made on monitoring the elements of academic growth (question 1). A measurement of the progress needed is that only 21 states have a teacher-identifier system that can match student achievement with specific teachers, a metric needed to measure progress over time.

A main reason why more states have not been able to collect all the data elements is a lack of financial and logistical resources and political challenges of various interest groups. For example, unions have voiced concerned that the data could be used against them or help determine their salaries. As budgets conditions deteriorate, state data directors will be challenged to continue to make progress in collecting data that fulfills the key components of the Data Quality Campaign and answer key policy questions. This developing need looks like an opportunity for evaluators to develop new tools and strategic planning that schools can use to be able to collect and record data efficiently and accurately for analysis that will present beneficial contributions to policy analysis.

Posted by admin at 01:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The nonprofit Network of Regional Healthcare Improvement (NRHI) recently released a report, From Volume to Value: Transforming Health Care Payment and Delivery Systems to Improve Quality and Reduce Costs, that urges reforms that could save billions of dollars and make expanding health insurance to the uninsured more affordable.

According to NRHI, the high cost of health care expenditures – estimated to $2.2 trillion in 2007- is due in large part because health care payment systems encourage volume-driven health care rather than value-driven health care. Under the current volume-driven payment systems, health care providers have strong incentives to provide more services to more individuals, but are financially discouraged to provide better services and improve health outcomes.

NRHI recommends that payments move towards a value-driven system, where insurers pay health care providers a single amount that covers all the services a patient needs instead of separate fees for each services. Additionally, insurers should move from a system that pays more to correct errors and preventable complications to a system that rewards health care providers for successful health outcomes. NRHI argues that such a system shifts responsibility to health care providers to increase quality and control costs.
The report also addressed the following health care issues:

• Encourage patients to use higher-quality, lower-cost doctors;
• Protect patients from service rationing (providing patients with a fixed amount of health care services, regardless of need); and
• Help health care providers change to new payment systems and lower-cost care.

The Improve Group staff has worked with multiple clients regarding public health issues regarding improving health care quality and access. As a small business, we also feel the need to look for the best health care coverage at the best cost for our own company and its employees. In these turbulent economic times, for an increasingly aging and socioeconomically diverse society, finding solutions in improving the quality and access health care are becoming increasingly important. Thus, there are many opportunities for evaluation, research and strategic planning to address these important issues.

Posted by admin at 02:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)