Monthly Archives: January 2015

When to Optimize and When to Deregulate, that is the Question (for State Superintendents)

Leave a reply

Over the past few months, both Kevin Huffman and John King stepped down from their respective state superintendent positions.

They both did incredible work, and I hope their successors can sustain their efforts. I also know both of them personally, and I have a ton of admiration for each of them.

Specifically, I thought Kevin did exceptional work in launching and supporting the Achievement School District. He recruited Chris Barbic and then gave Chris a lot of cover to seed what I hope will be major improvements for children who are stuck in failing schools.

I’m also eager to see the results of John’s raising the bar on teacher preparation, which could work to solidify the trend of higher-quality teachers entering the profession.

Time will tell what these reforms are able to deliver.

In my past life at NSNO, I also worked closely with John White, who, in my mind, has been a near political genius in ensuring Louisiana students have the opportunity to engage in more rigorous coursework.

___

It will be no surprise to readers of this blog that I have pretty strong opinions about what city superintendents should do. They should relinquish. With the right leadership, I think any city in this country could transition to an all non-profit system within ten years. And I believe the primary duty of a city superintendent should be to lead this transition in a manner that promotes educational excellence and equity.

But being a state superintendent is different. For both political and pragmatic reasons, a state superintendent can’t simply relinquish. First and foremost, they have major policy duties (standards, assessments, accountability, etc.) that are regulatory, not operational, in nature; secondly, we have yet to build the non-governmental capability to scale school operation across entire states.

As such, in every decision, state supes face a question: should they optimize or deregulate?

These are not easy calls to make; see below for some thoughts.

What Should State Supes Optimize?

I think state supes should optimize core regulatory functions, including: standards, assessments, accountability, and teacher preparation. In short, they should make standards high, assessments rigorous, accountability transparent (letter grades are my preferred labeling system), and teacher preparation functional (at minimum, publishing value-add data of programs).

What Should State Supes Deregulate? 

I think state supes should promote deregulation via alternative governance such as Recovery School Districts; support charter school growth via state authorization; and increase options via accountable voucher programs.

The Squishy Middle

I’m much more up in the air around what state supes should do around supporting schools. Some states have done a lot around material creation (curriculum, lesson plans, etc.). Others have done a lot around direct support to superintendents (coaching, consulting services, etc.). Others have done a lot around direct support to teachers (master teacher training, train the trainer, etc.).

Kevin, John, and John have taken Common Core implementation very seriously. Whatever you think of the new standards, implementation is important, and these three supes have been national leaders.

All that being said, I’m mildly skeptical about much of direct state support to educators.

But, admittedly, I really don’t have any other better idea outside of don’t do anything at all, which, at the very least, is not politically wise when rolling out major initiatives such as higher standards and assessments.

In Sum

I think the core of a state superintendent’s work is to optimize policy and deregulate school operation. My guess is that this is where state supes have most leverage to do high impact work.

My guess is that direct support to districts, schools, and teachers will have less impact.

But I might be wrong.

And if anyone will prove me wrong about the effectiveness of direct state support, it will likely be one of Kevin Huffman, John King, or John White.

Sentences to Ponder

Leave a reply

ponder

1. Study finds pro-charter arguments are more convincing

“Arguments against unions seemed to resonate more strongly with participants, and made them significantly more likely to support charter schools.”

2. My morning at Success Academies

“David Noah, the school’s principal described their model as ‘exploration and inquiry based teaching.’  But it’s full of the structures great teaching too-systems and routines and the structure to make sure kids use their autonomy in just the right way.  Made me so happy to see a school demonstrating that TLaC techniques can support an inquiry-based academic culture.”

3.

“The U.S. withstood an almost-unprecedented series of shocks in the years from 2000 through 2011. The list of disasters is so extraordinary that it’s worth repeating, just for emphasis.”

4. Ray Kurzweil predictions

“By the late 2010s, glasses will beam images directly onto the retina. Ten terabytes of computing power (roughly the same as the human brain) will cost about $1,000.

By the 2020s, most diseases will go away as nanobots become smarter than current medical technology. Normal human eating can be replaced by nanosystems. The Turing test begins to be passable. Self-driving cars begin to take over the roads, and people won’t be allowed to drive on highways.

By the 2030s, virtual reality will begin to feel 100% real. We will be able to upload our mind/consciousness by the end of the decade.

By the 2040s, non-biological intelligence will be a billion times more capable than biological intelligence (a.k.a. us). Nanotech foglets will be able to make food out of thin air and create any object in physical world at a whim.”

By 2045, we will multiply our intelligence a billionfold by linking wirelessly from our neocortex to a synthetic neocortex in the cloud.

The Dark Side of Leadership: the Anxiety Trilogy

Leave a reply

In a conversation with a friend, I was recently reflecting on the following three books:

1. Harlod Bloom’s  – a book about how poets suffer from anxiety induced by their relationships with their predecessors, and how some “strong” poets achieve greatness while most simply write derivative work.

2. Andy Grove’s  – a book about how paranoia allows some leaders to respond to strategic inflection points in their industries, and thus survive major internal and external shocks.

3. Kashdan and Biswas-Diener’s  – a book about how dark emotions such as anger, anxiety, guilt, and sadness can drive performance.

Taken together, they form sort of a trilogy on how harnessing anxiety (and similar dark emotions) can  lead to strong performance – and even genius.

Speaking from personal experience, I understand how dark emotions such as anxiety, need for risk taking, and status seeking can both lead to incredible breakthroughs and serious fuck-ups.

Whether it is Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Thomas Jefferson, or Elizabeth I – your heroes were always in a constant battle with their dark side; sometimes they won, sometimes they lost, and sometime they harnessed their dark side for the good of others.

As a leader, the tensions are multifold: rationalization and suppression are there as poles; contentment is there in fleeting blips; and anxiety, in waves low and high, might be the closet thing to consistency.

Good luck.

A Better NCLB

Leave a reply

Yesterday, Mike Petrilli had a good post on how the federal government is better suited to ensure transparency in data rather than dictate how states hold failing schools accountable.

I agree with Mike’s two main points:

(1) The federal government doesn’t really know what it takes to turnaround failing schools, so it shouldn’t be prescriptive.

(2) The federal government does know how to support charter school growth, and it should expand this program.

Some related thoughts, which, taken together, form a Relinquishment agenda for NCLB.

Keep the Flashlight on the Bottom 5%

I do think that the feds should require that each state identify its bottom 5% of schools. Interventions like Recovery School Districts are often predicated and justified by the state being clear about which schools are dramatically failing children. Given that states sometimes use confusing performance labels (stars, tiers, etc.), I think clearly identifying the bottom 5% is a reasonable requirement that promotes transparency.

States Should Do Something for Children Trapped in Failing Schools 

Just because we don’t have clear evidence in what works in turnarounds, it doesn’t mean states should just throw their hands up when it comes to students trapped in failing schools. The feds should also require that states submit a plan that outlines a strategy for better serving students in the bottom 5% schools. At the very least, this will force a public debate on the issue; moreover, it will give reform minded state superintendents some cover for taking action. Like Mike, I view RSDs and charter expansion as promising strategies, but hopefully there’s more innovation to be had. To be clear, I don’t think the strategy even needs to be a turnaround strategy; you could simply give a voucher to every kid in a failing schools. I’m just saying states should submit a plan to the feds that puts forth a strategy to get students out of these terrible situations.

The Charter School Program Should be Quadrupled 

This is a rare moment in time when both parties share some agreement on a major policy issue (charter schools). This moment should be seized to dramatically increase one of the few educational programs the feds fund that has actually been shown to increase achievement for African-American students. To ensure the money is well utilized, the feds could stipulate that states can only receive this money if they have clear accountability policies for closing charter schools that persistently fail children. I work with a lot of states that may see a decrease in charter growth due to expiring federal grants. This is a ripe time to make sure this doesn’t occur.

Investing in Innovation: Sustain Federal Investment, Enable State Investment

There’s some rumblings that Republicans want to strip i3 and other competitive grant programs. I find it ironic that of all the waste in federal education spending, Republicans might cut some of the few programs that are actually tied to funding non-governmental organizations that work. If Republicans are worried about the feds having too heavy of a hand, they could push a lot of this money down to states (while keeping evidence requirements in place). Big picture, we spend a ton of public money on education, and very little of it funds innovative work. So I’d keep the federal program, kickstart state programs, and take whatever funds you need from Title II, which remains a slush fund for mediocre PD vendors. Investing in Innovation is another place where federal support can give cover and resources to bold state supes.

Why So Little Innovation in Education?

9 Replies

A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer

At this point, it’s nearly obligatory for a conference speaker or panelist to say either:

(1) “Classrooms look the same exact same as they did one hundred years ago.”

or

(2) “We need to transform our outdated factory model of schooling.”

Rarely does the speaker then give a plausible explanation for why classrooms look the same now as they used to do a hundred years ago, or why we haven’t thrown off the awful shackles of the factory model of education.

If we’re going to increase education innovation, we should probably try and understand why there is so little of it.

So let’s dig in.

Some possible explanations for the lack of innovation could be:

1. Regulation is hampering innovation.

Education in this country is heavily regulated, especially at the K12 level. It’s possible that this regulation is blocking potential innovation. Regulator inhibitors likely include: monopolized school operations, unified standards and annual assessments, and lack of family choice.

2. Lack of radically innovative talent.

The education industry might be failing to attract radical innovators into the field, perhaps because of some combination of culture, structure, or prestige. The true innovators might be drawn to other fields.

3. Lack of a profit motive.

A profit motive can spur innovation, especially when it comes to rapid marginal improvements to existing products (think Moore’s law). The lack of profit motive in education could be a factor in reduced innovation.

4. People don’t really care about learning.

Despite all the fuss about achievement, perhaps people mostly just care about things like status, peer groups, and safety– so the producers of education respond to this demand. Parents may be both value non-academic qualities and be very risk adverse, each of which could hamper innovation.

5. There’s not much low-hanging fruit.

Perhaps schools still look the same because the way we are doing it is the best way to educate children for a reasonable price. Limits on human capital and technology might make it (currently) difficult to radically improve them model.

 6. There’s actually a lot of innovation happening.

One might argue that innovation is occurring – it’s just less visible. Advances in data-driven instruction might be an example of a “silent” innovation.

So which is it? 

I imagine most people would point to the first four causes (regulation, talent, no profit motive, status seeking) if they were pushed to explain why innovation is lagging in education.

And I think each of these causes does play a role.

But there are also pretty big holes in each of these explanations:

If regulation is hampering innovation, then why aren’t private schools innovating more?

If a lack of talent is hampering innovation, how to square this with the fact that TFA out recruits most industries when it comes to Ivy League talent?

If lack of profit motive is hampering innovation, then why don’t we seem more innovation in textbooks, computer programs, and school operations – all of which have significant profit motives?

If people don’t really care about learning, then how come the recent New Orleans study on parent choice demonstrated that academic performance was the amongst the highest rated determinants of school selection?

There’s not much low-hanging fruit?

I’m not sure, but perhaps.

I will say this: I think there’s less low-hanging fruit than most people think there is.

That being said, I do think all of the above factors are real, and, to some extent, are inhibiting innovation. I just don’t think any of them are slam-dunk answers.

Perhaps if we continue to make headway in areas such as deregulation and talent, then we’ll see much more innovation.

But there’s a chance we might not.

It’s possible that the real innovation breakthroughs won’t occur until artificial intelligence is much more sophisticated, or the cost of labor is dramatically reduced.

My guess is that both of these circumstances will occur in the next fifty years.

*This post is based on a conversation I had with a charter leader in Memphis. As per usual, talking to awesome people continues to be a primary source for my thinking.

Sentences to Ponder

Leave a reply

ponder

1. Nashville charters work

“Despite representing only 12% of all public schools in Nashville, charter schools were 9 of the 13 schools that were high performing and high percentage economically disadvantaged.'”

2. More on micro schools

“The logic behind making schools bigger — to reduce fixed costs and/or diversify teacher expertise had merit 100 years ago when access to information and expertise were more costly. But as the cost of high-quality curriculum moves quickly towards zero, the costs of large schools are starting to outweigh their benefits.”

3. Deans for Impact

“More than a dozen education school deans are banding together, aiming to design a coherent set of teacher-preparation experiences, validate them, and shore up support for them within their own colleges and the field at large.”

4. Can district learn from charters?

“Convincing all the existing teachers in schools in high poverty areas to drastically change their workload, I think is not a model that could work. Could it happen in some areas? Probably. But I don’t think it could in most. This is why public schools could not embrace the lessons of high performing charter schools even if we assume that there are simply concrete lessons to learn.”

Stealing Back Possible

3 Replies

don't steal p

The good folks at MIT and Duke have a new study out on the student achievement impacts of turnaround charter schools in New Orleans and Boston.

I’m very familiar with the three operators studied: Renew Schools, Crescent City Schools, and UP Education Network. For what ever it’s worth, during my time at NSNO we invested in both Renew and Crescent City Schools.

Admittedly, I was always hesitant to invest in turnaround operators.

Turnaround operators face numerous obstacles. They start big and have to hire dozens of teachers in year one. They generally step into a difficult legacy of poor performance and weak culture. And they often are taking over schools with disproportionally high rates of students with severe needs.

Taken together, these factors make turnaround work very difficult. I was thus never sure whether it was better to just outright close schools (even though this is disruptive to families) or support turnaround (and risk modest or poor academic outcomes).

I thus read this study with some trepidation. But the results were fairly astounding.

The Results

From the study, here are the effects for students who initially attended the failing schools and then enrolled in the new charter takeover:

Attendance at RSD takeover charters is estimated to increase math and ELA scores by an average of 0.21 and 0.14, respectively, per year enrolled.

The UP enrollment change induced by grandfathering Gavin students boosted middle school math and ELA scores by an average of 0.3- 0.4 per year.

Given varying enrollment patterns and eligible matching students, the authors had to do some mathematical gymnastics, some of which probably bias the results downwards, and some which probably the results upwards.

But, overall, this is rigorous research that finds large annual effects.

The effects of UP border on miracle making.

Reflections and Implications

  1. We should applaud Gary Robichaux, Kate Mehok, and Scott Givens – the leaders of these charter operators took major risks in taking on the hardest work, and their efforts are paying off for kids who were trapped in failing schools.
  1. The federal government has spent billions of dollars on the School Improvement Grant Program. To their credit, the feds included charter turnaround as a grant option. Not surprisingly, most turnaround projects used much less aggressive methods. I’m curious if these charter turnarounds are outliers, or if this method of intervention will be the most successful. More research is needed.
  1. I don’t think we should pressure all charter operators to do turnarounds. Only some organizations have the capacity to take on these projects. We should nurture and scale this part of the sector, but it’s vital that we leave room for smaller start-ups as well.
  1. The highest performing charters sector in the nation delivers again. Is there anything Boston charter leaders can’t do? Yes, there is something they can’t do: educate more students. Most charter organizations in Boston are subject to a law that prevents them for serving more students. The fact that this law was written and enacted by Democrats is unconscionable for a party that has a deep history of fighting for families in poverty.
  1. The recent charter campaign in New York used the slogan “Don’t Steal Possible” to describe the plight of the over hundred thousand children trapped in failing schools in New York. Unfortunately, for many students, “possible” has already been stolen. But the charter operators in this study are proving there’s a way to steal possible back.