Competition Yields Unequal and Disappointing Charter Results

Substantial research strongly suggests that teachers may be the most important element of an effective school. But does that mean that K-12 improvement must wait on the ability of schools or systems to recruit, nurture, and retain outstanding teachers?

Such a strategy implies that widespread excellence hinges on the ability of publicly funded school systems to attract more than 3.3 million superstars—or more than 200,000 such hires a year. The challenge of recruiting our way to excellence is a daunting proposition.

Education Sector senior fellow Steven Wilson, is skeptical that it is a feasible one. In an American Enterprise Institute working paper, he notes that today’s successful charter schools have succeeded by creating a “No Excuses” culture reliant on their ability to attract talented and passionate recruits. He doubts, however, that these models are capable of working at the scale that the nation requires.

Indeed, given the limited talent pool of promising hires and the exhausting demands these schools make of faculty, Wilson considers whether such models can ever effectively serve more than a handful of the nation’s students.

Internationally, the top performing education systems (Finland and Singapore) draw their teachers from the top third of college graduates. In America, urban school systems typically draw their teachers primarily from the bottom third.

However, the SAT scores of prospective teachers passing teacher licensing tests has risen in the last ten years in the United States, as have their college grades.

At least since President Lyndon Johnson announced his plan to move the nation “toward the Great Society,” policymakers and philanthropists have sought a remedy to persistent academic underachievement in America’s cities.

While the charter school movement as a whole has disappointed, a small number of the new schools have posted arresting results, with their low-income students, primarily African-American and Hispanic, outperforming students statewide—and in some cases, their white peers from affluent suburban districts.

Among this smattering of “gap-closing” schools, one broad approach, frequently called “No Excuses” schooling, appears to dominate.

The Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP) network of schools is the exemplar, but the approach is proliferating in other networks, including Achievement First, Uncommon Schools, and in stand-alone schools, many of which aspire to replicate themselves in the coming years. The growing attention these organizations are receiving is richly deserved.

If scholarly research (addressing complexities like selection effects) confirms their apparent achievements, they will have demonstrated a schooling model that, with some consistency, turns around the academic trajectory of their students. That possibility has already created understandable excitement, attracted substantial philanthropic support for existing or aspiring No Excuses school networks, and drawn thousands of exceptional young people to work in urban education as classroom teachers, school leaders, and managers in No Excuses networks.

The critical question is now one of scale: If the No Excuses formula is behind most high performing urban charter schools, is the approach sustainable, and can it be widely reproduced?

The new bargain that charter legislation extended—authority and autonomy in exchange for accountability—sparked thousands of education entrepreneurs to create new schools. Despite the energy and commitment of their founders, most charter schools have failed to decisively outperform their district competitors.

Seventeen years after Minnesota became the first state to pass charter legislation, the number of charter schools that are truly “gap-closers”—where urban or rural students, despite their economic disadvantage, are performing on par with their more affluent, typically suburban peers—is small. There are perhaps as few as 200 nationwide...

As in Alabama: Pre-K plans could face challenge

There is no more important variable to the success of any educational effort than the presence of a high-quality faculty.

This is true at every level of education and in every circumstance.

Consider the case of smaller class sizes. Any veteran teacher knows that their ability to build productive relationships with their students is limited when the numbers get too large. Smaller classes allow for more personalized and more effective instruction. If that was not true, private schools would have 60:1 student teacher ratios.

But when California decided to implement their state-wide lower class size initiative a few years back - without consideration for whether enough qualified teachers existed - the program collapsed under the weight of poor results. The right idea; killed by bad implementation.

The same could be true of Kentucky's effort to expand pre-school opportunities in Kentucky - if we're not careful to implement the program gradually, as qualified teachers become available.

During a school board campaign a couple of years ago I had the opportunity to go door-to-door and speak to many citizens about our schools, and what might be done to improve them. I still remember one parent in particular. She was upset because she couldn't afford to get her daughter into pre-school - and she knew what that would mean for her later on. It meant that her child would start out "behind."

As we talked, I learned that her problem was that she made too much money. Not so much that I would trade her salaries, but too much for her to be considered poor - thus qualifying for free pre-school. She was African American, educated and working. She had been able to afford a small starter home off of Bold Bidder Drive; away from the inner city and its challenges. She was exactly that kind of person I could imagine making the most of such an opportunity for her daughter. In a fair system of free public education, her daughter would not have to start out two years behind her "competition." But it was not to be.

Recently the Prichard Committee has taken up the good cause of universal pre-school in Kentucky for 3 and 4 year olds. This is admirable for any group that is interested in closing achievement gaps. Education limits the size of such gaps at the outset. And they have taken into account our need for qualified teachers who would make the program a success. We need to move quickly to approve such a program - but implement it as sufficient numbers of qualified teachers become availble.

We can't afford to ruin public support for a great idea by moving too quickly.

This from the Press-Register:

[Alabama Governor] Bob Riley's plan to expand the state's pre-kindergarten program could run into a major obstacle: a shortage of qualified teachers.

The majority of those wanting to teach elementary school earn a degree with an elementary education certification, which allows them to teach kindergarten through sixth grade. A separate early childhood designation certifies teachers for pre-kindergarten through third grade. Most choose the elementary option because they'll have more flexibility in landing a job.

"If you can teach seven grades, it enhances your marketability," said Lester Smith, human resources director for Baldwin County Public Schools, who added, "Most teachers are very concerned about finding that first job."

Pre-K teaches basic skills to 4-year-olds, preparing them to step up to kindergarten the next year. Children who complete pre-K perform better through their school years, have higher graduation rates, and eventually earn higher salaries, according to various studies.

Alabama's pre-kindergarten program has won extensive praise, but reaches only a fraction of the children who might take part.

Still, a major expansion would be pointless without qualified teachers...