Many have tried to quantify the value of education— in fact, even we did in our video, Is it Worth It? But calculating what we get versus what we spend on public education is far from an easy exercise, as there are so many variables and value judgments that come into play.
Enter Forbes magazine, which attempted to determine what would happen if education policymakers put their money where their mouth is in five key areas: implementing the Common Core State Standards, strengthening teacher effectiveness and principal development, and expanding early education and blended learning.
Each comes with a hefty price tag that taken together would cost a cool $6.2 trillion over a 20 year period or $310 billion annually. In return, Forbes (with assistance from respected Stanford economist Eric Hanushek) predicts the U.S. would see its gross domestic product increase by some $225 trillion over the life of that generation’s professional career.
Where the initial outlay would come from— apparently hedge funds, inheritances and venture capital— is another story. What caught my attention about this study appeared to be a credible attempt to affix real dollars and cents to top education reforms and the benefits our country would reap from it. Even if it’s hypothetical, a nearly 37 percent return on five major education investments is not something to ignore … though, apparently we have.
We gave you something to watch earlier this week with the release of our newest video, Making Time, now we’re giving you something to read.
Much like our video, Beyond Fiction: The Importance of Reading for Information, is concise but packed with data and analysis on a really concerning trend in the American populace: we’re good at reading for pleasure and entertainment but not so good at reading for information. What exactly do we mean by reading for information?
It’s everything from being able to read and understand a newspaper article (which about 30 million American adults can’t do) to being able to decipher a street map (which some 27 million American adults can’t do). We don’t mean to pick on the adults here, but international surveys conducted by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, show we get progressively worse at informational literacy the older we get.
Just four countries ranked higher than the US when it came to fourth-graders’ ability to acquire and use information. In contrast, 14 countries ranked higher than our 15-year-olds in terms of their ability to acquire and use information. Not good. But new standards, particularly the ones touted by Common Core, aim to fix this disparity by expanding and restructuring the way literature is taught. So, take a moment to dig into our latest study which, yes, is a form of informational text. Aren’t you smart! – Naomi Dillon
Restructuring the school day or year is an evergreen topic in school reform debates, as the expectations for what students should know continue to rise while the time required to meet these new standards has not kept pace.
The Center for Public Education has studied the subject of time both directly, and indirectly. Clearly, time is ubiquitous and (should be) embedded in every attempt to improve schools and student achievement. In what ways, you ask?
Enter our latest CPE video, titled appropriately: Making Time. It’s a high-level and abbreviated (don’t worry it’s only four minutes long) look at the areas where schools must invest time if they expect to see any positive growth. Enjoy!
The Center for Public Education is pleased to present The Path Least Taken, the first installment of a series that looks at the characteristics and outcomes of high school graduates who don’t go on to college.
Jim Hull, CPE’s senior policy analyst, sifted through data from the National Center for Education Statistics’ Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002 and found new insights into this segment of the population (Spoiler: the percentage of non-college-goers is smaller than we thought) and a new format to showcase these findings. You can find the full report here, along with other extras.
Teacher tenure has been a hot topic lately, thanks to the Vergara decision a couple weeks ago in California that found the state’s teacher tenure laws were unconstitutional. As I wrote at the time, the decision is unlikely to spur a wave of similar lawsuits across the country, in large part, because many states have or are in the process of revising their tenure laws to incorporate measures of teacher effectiveness when granting tenure—-unlike in California. Many critics of teacher tenure hailed the decision believing it will now be easier to remove ineffective teachers.
However, simply removing ineffective teachers will not positively impact student achievement if those teachers aren’t replaced by more effective teachers. Recent reports from the CALDER Center at the American Institutes of Research (AIR) shed an all too important light on this question. One such report on New York City found teachers were only slightly more likely to be denied tenure after the city revamped their tenure process following the 2008-09 school year—an increase from a 2 to 3 percent denial rate. Yet, the rate at which teachers were approved for tenure declined dramatically because many more teachers had their probationary period extended instead of having their tenure denied or approved. Prior to the tenure reforms, 94 percent of eligible teachers had their tenure approved. Following the tenure reforms, that rate dipped to just 56 percent.
While New York City’s new tenure law did not force ineffective teachers to leave the classroom, many chose to leave on their own. The CALDER report found teachers who had their probationary period extended were 50 percent more likely to transfer to another school and 66 percent more likely to exit the system compared with teachers in the same school who were approved for tenure.
While critics of teacher tenure would hold this finding up as a success of tenure reform, it would in fact be a failure if ineffective teachers simply replaced the departing ones. Luckily for the students this is not what has happened in New York City. The teachers who had their probationary period extended and then left the school were on-average less effective than the teachers who replaced them in terms of both value-added scores and principal ratings. And the differences in effectiveness was fairly substantial as well.
If these trends continue students in New York City will be much less likely to be taught by an ineffective teacher as less effective teachers leave the profession while being replaced by more effective teachers. As previous research has shown, this can have a substantial impact on student achievement but such an impact will not happen over night. As effectiveness data comes in from states across the country that have implemented more accurate teacher evaluation systems, it is clear there isn’t a large proportion of consistently ineffective teachers that should be removed from the classroom. In fact, the vast majority of teachers are quite good so the focus should be on improving the performance of all teachers. Such focus will likely have a significant impact on student achievement as well. Yet, removing consistently ineffective teachers shouldn’t be ignored either. Even if just a small proportion of ineffective teachers left the profession each year and are replaced by more effective teachers, over time the impact would compound, such that students 10 years from now would be much less likely to be taught by an ineffective teacher than a student today.
Reforming teacher tenure laws and creating more accurate teacher evaluation systems have the potential to improve the overall effectiveness of teachers– if done correctly– but such impacts will not happen overnight. It will take time to make a significant impact on the overall effective of our teachers but it will likely have a tremendous impact on the achievement of those students who are just entering our public schools. – Jim Hull