Community and Economic Development;Education and Literacy
Presents a case study of community organizing for school reform by Austin Interfaith: how its "alliance schools" network and parent and community engagement shaped leadership development, district-level policy, school-level capacity, and student outcomes.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Southwestern) / Texas;North America / United States (Southwestern) / Texas / Travis County / Austin
Community and Economic Development;Education and Literacy
Presents a case study of community organizing for school reform by Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition and Sistas and Brothas United: how their campaigns shaped leadership development, district policy, school capacity, and student outcomes.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Northeastern) / New York;North America / United States (Northeastern) / New York / Bronx County / New York City (Bronx);North America / United States (Northeastern) / New York / New York County / New York City
A report on teacher evaluations recently released by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been refuted by one of the nation's leading economists, who found the widely published report to be seriously flawed. The Gates Foundation last month released the first report of its "Measures of Effective Teaching" (MET) project, which aims to develop a reliable method for evaluating teachers. The report was thoroughly reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by University of California at Berkeley economist Jesse Rothstein, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor. Rothstein, who is also former senior economist for the Council of Economic Advisers, found the Gates Foundation's MET report to be based on flawed research and predetermined conclusions.
The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado at Boulder School of Education, with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice.
Rothstein's analysis found the MET report draws conclusions that are not supported by its own facts, with some data in the report pointing "in the opposite direction" from what is indicated in its "poorly-supported conclusions."
Rothstein found several instances of conclusions not supported by data. One striking example: The MET report's data suggest that many teachers whose students have low math scores rank among the best at teaching "deeper" concepts. Yet the MET report draws the conclusion that teachers whose students score highly on standardized math tests "tend to promote deeper conceptual understanding as well."
Rothstein also found that the MET report relies heavily on standardized test scores and student surveys, which are insufficient measurements of teacher effectiveness, as teachers facing high-stakes testing will emphasize skills and topics geared toward raising test scores, while de-emphasizing those that aren't on the test. High-stakes student surveys, meanwhile, can be distorted by mischievous adolescents who may not answer honestly if they know their responses can affect teachers' compensation and careers, while teachers may be compelled to alter their practice to cater to student demands, Rothstein reported.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Western) / California
This CED report examines teacher pay and other compensation issues. Schools must be able to compete effectively for college-educated workers who have more career choices and see themselves as more mobile professionally than did earlier generations. Traditional compensation policies for teachers (salary schedules that reward only longevity and academic credentials, and pension policies that penalize mobile teachers and those who do not spend a lifetime career in teaching) are out of sync with the objective of expanding the pool of talented individuals who are willing to teach.
August 1970
Geographic Focus:
In recent years, we have seen a rapid expansion of policies and resources devoted to new teacher induction. Most of these policies are based on an assumption that induction programs have a positive influence on teacher quality and student learning. Yet there is little evidence to support claims for such policies regarding the distinct components of induction programs or their effectiveness (Wang, Odell & Schwille, 2008). Scholars have argued for targeted mentoring that addresses the learning needs of beginning teachers with regard to instructional practice (Feiman-Nemser, 2001). Some suggest that induction efforts may increase teacher knowledge, student achievement, teacher satisfaction, and retention (Darling-Hammond, 1999; Fletcher, Strong & Villar, 2008; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004).
There is, however, insufficient data to assist educators and policy makers in determining the most effective or critical components of induction programs. There is scant consensus around a number of induction issues, for example: the most effective mentoring condition (full-time or add-on mentoring); the amount of time required to enhance the development of beginning teachers; the amount of professional development mentors need to be effective; and the level of match (subject or grade level) required between mentor and beginning teacher. Furthermore, few studies explore the different components of induction and their effects on teacher and student outcomes.
Given such a dearth of evidence and the current state of induction policy, this study was developed to examine differences in student engagement and teacher instructional practice in two types of induction conditions: comprehensive full-time induction and add-on induction. These two conditions differed in
- the amount of mentor participation in professional development on induction;
- the amount of time mentors could spend on structured observations, reflection, and feedback focused on pedagogy;
- mentors' abilities to prioritize induction efforts;
- mentors' abilities to serve as liaisons between beginning teachers and administrators; and
- the amount of professional development mentors could offer beginning teachers.
The goal of this study was to examine the instructional practice of beginning teachers who were mentored in these two conditions and to explore differences in instructional practice and student engagement.
August 1970
Geographic Focus:
Education and Literacy;Parenting and Families
School choice is increasingly the new normal in urban education. But in cities with multiple public school options, how can civic leaders create a choice system that works for all families, whether they choose a charter or district public school?
To answer this question, CRPE researchers surveyed 4,000 parents in eight cities (Baltimore, Cleveland, Denver, Detroit, Indianapolis, New Orleans, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C.) with high degrees of school choice. The researchers also conducted interviews with government officials, choice advocates, and community leaders in four cities, and looked at how many different agencies oversee schools in 35 cities.
The study found that:
- In the eight cities surveyed, the majority of parents are actively choosing a school for their children.
- Parents face significant barriers to choosing schools, including inadequate information, transportation, and lack of quality options.
- Challenges facing families are not confined to the charter or district sector.
- Responsibility for schools often falls to multiple parties, including school districts, charter school authorizers, and state agencies, weakening accountability and making it difficult for leaders to address the challenges facing parents.
The report finds that a more transparent, accountable, and fair system will require action from all parties, including school districts, charter authorizers, charter operators, and states. State and city leaders may need to change laws to ensure that districts and charter authorizers oversee schools responsibly and that families do not face large barriers to choice. In some cases, formal governance changes may be necessary to address the challenges to making school choice work for all families.
December 1969
Geographic Focus: North America-United States
New Teacher Center worked collaboratively with nine state coalitions - including governors, state education agencies, teacher associations, stakeholder groups and practitioners - to implement the Teaching, Empowering, Leading and Learning (TELL) survey statewide in nine states from the spring of 2012 to the spring of 2103. The TELL survey is a full-population survey of school-based licensed educators designed to report the perceptions about the presence of teaching and learning conditions that research has shown increase student learning and teacher retention.
The conditions assessed in the TELL survey include:
- Time
- Facilities and Resources
- Professional Development
- School Leadership
- Teacher Leadership
- Instructional Practices and Support
- Managing Student Conduct
- Community Support and Involvement
- New Teacher Support (for teachers in their first three years in the profession)
This report compares the results of the TELL survey at the state level across the country, providing an additional contextual lens for interpreting the results from each participating state to better understand their own findings.
December 1969
Geographic Focus: North America-United States;North America-United States (Western)-Colorado;North America-United States (Southern)-Tennessee;North America-United States (Midwestern)-Ohio;North America-United States (Southern)-North Carolina;North America-United States (Southern)-Maryland;North America-United States (Southern)-Kentucky;North America-United States (Northeastern)-Vermont;North America-United States (Northeastern)-Massachusetts;North America-United States (Northeastern)-Delaware
Common enrollment systems designed to manage student enrollment across district and charter sectors introduce a host of governance challenges. City charter and district leaders realize the importance of cross-sector representation when deciding policies related to enrollment, such as the number of choices families should list or whether some students will have enrollment priority over others. The question of who will administer the enrollment process once these policy decisions are made can be highly controversial. Cities that don't attend to these management questions early on risk major political fights that can stall or derail progress on the effort.
There is little precedence, nor is there a ready-made legal framework, for coordinating enrollment across sectors; how these systems will be governed and operated must instead be resolved through the collaboration of agencies, many of which have histories of competition, mistrust, and hostility. In this issue brief, we draw from a series of interviews with local education leaders in Denver, New Orleans, and Washington, D.C., focusing on the governance issues that emerged as these three jurisdictions sought a cross-sector common enrollment system.
While some urban school systems have long had enrollment processes to manage choice for schools under their control, the expansion of charter schools presents a different and more complicated challenge for both parents and administrators. In many places, students no longer have a single "home district" in the traditional sense. Instead, they can now choose to enroll in the local school district or one of the city's charter schools. State charter laws give charter schools -- whether they are an independent local education agency or not -- authority over their enrollment processes; a charter school must conduct its process in a manner consistent with the law, typically a random lottery.
As charter schools grow in number, so does the number of separate enrollment systems operating across individual cities. In Denver, for example, a 2010 report showed that 60 separate enrollment systems operated in the city at the same time. Similar situations occurred in New Orleans and D.C. As individual selection processes grew to unmanageable levels in these cities, education and community leaders sought ways to rationalize and centralize student placement across an increasing number of school choices
December 1969
Geographic Focus: North America-United States (Western)-Colorado-Denver County-Denver;North America-United States (Southern)-Louisiana-Orleans Parish-New Orleans;North America-United States (Southern)-District of Columbia-Washington
