News – Education Next https://www.educationnext.org A Journal of Opinion and Research About Education Policy Wed, 09 Aug 2023 14:04:11 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.2 https://i2.wp.com/www.educationnext.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/e-logo-1.png?fit=32%2C32&ssl=1 News – Education Next https://www.educationnext.org 32 32 181792879 AI in Education https://www.educationnext.org/a-i-in-education-leap-into-new-era-machine-intelligence-carries-risks-challenges-promises/ Tue, 08 Aug 2023 09:00:22 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49716825 The leap into a new era of machine intelligence carries risks and challenges, but also plenty of promise

The post AI in Education appeared first on Education Next.

]]>

Illustration

In Neal Stephenson’s 1995 science fiction novel, The Diamond Age, readers meet Nell, a young girl who comes into possession of a highly advanced book, The Young Lady’s Illustrated Primer. The book is not the usual static collection of texts and images but a deeply immersive tool that can converse with the reader, answer questions, and personalize its content, all in service of educating and motivating a young girl to be a strong, independent individual.

Such a device, even after the introduction of the Internet and tablet computers, has remained in the realm of science fiction—until now. Artificial intelligence, or AI, took a giant leap forward with the introduction in November 2022 of ChatGPT, an AI technology capable of producing remarkably creative responses and sophisticated analysis through human-like dialogue. It has triggered a wave of innovation, some of which suggests we might be on the brink of an era of interactive, super-intelligent tools not unlike the book Stephenson dreamed up for Nell.

Sundar Pichai, Google’s CEO, calls artificial intelligence “more profound than fire or electricity or anything we have done in the past.” Reid Hoffman, the founder of LinkedIn and current partner at Greylock Partners, says, “The power to make positive change in the world is about to get the biggest boost it’s ever had.” And Bill Gates has said that “this new wave of AI is as fundamental as the creation of the microprocessor, the personal computer, the Internet, and the mobile phone.”

Over the last year, developers have released a dizzying array of AI tools that can generate text, images, music, and video with no need for complicated coding but simply in response to instructions given in natural language. These technologies are rapidly improving, and developers are introducing capabilities that would have been considered science fiction just a few years ago. AI is also raising pressing ethical questions around bias, appropriate use, and plagiarism.

In the realm of education, this technology will influence how students learn, how teachers work, and ultimately how we structure our education system. Some educators and leaders look forward to these changes with great enthusiasm. Sal Kahn, founder of Khan Academy, went so far as to say in a TED talk that AI has the potential to effect “probably the biggest positive transformation that education has ever seen.” But others warn that AI will enable the spread of misinformation, facilitate cheating in school and college, kill whatever vestiges of individual privacy remain, and cause massive job loss. The challenge is to harness the positive potential while avoiding or mitigating the harm.

What Is Generative AI?

Artificial intelligence is a branch of computer science that focuses on creating software capable of mimicking behaviors and processes we would consider “intelligent” if exhibited by humans, including reasoning, learning, problem-solving, and exercising creativity. AI systems can be applied to an extensive range of tasks, including language translation, image recognition, navigating autonomous vehicles, detecting and treating cancer, and, in the case of generative AI, producing content and knowledge rather than simply searching for and retrieving it.

Foundation models” in generative AI are systems trained on a large dataset to learn a broad base of knowledge that can then be adapted to a range of different, more specific purposes. This learning method is self-supervised, meaning the model learns by finding patterns and relationships in the data it is trained on.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are foundation models that have been trained on a vast amount of text data. For example, the training data for OpenAI’s GPT model consisted of web content, books, Wikipedia articles, news articles, social media posts, code snippets, and more. OpenAI’s GPT-3 models underwent training on a staggering 300 billion “tokens” or word pieces, using more than 175 billion parameters to shape the model’s behavior—nearly 100 times more data than the company’s GPT-2 model had.

By doing this analysis across billions of sentences, LLM models develop a statistical understanding of language: how words and phrases are usually combined, what topics are typically discussed together, and what tone or style is appropriate in different contexts. That allows it to generate human-like text and perform a wide range of tasks, such as writing articles, answering questions, or analyzing unstructured data.

LLMs include OpenAI’s GPT-4, Google’s PaLM, and Meta’s LLaMA. These LLMs serve as “foundations” for AI applications. ChatGPT is built on GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, while Bard uses Google’s Pathways Language Model 2 (PaLM 2) as its foundation.

Some of the best-known applications are:

ChatGPT 3.5. The free version of ChatGPT released by OpenAI in November 2022. It was trained on data only up to 2021, and while it is very fast, it is prone to inaccuracies.

ChatGPT 4.0. The newest version of ChatGPT, which is more powerful and accurate than ChatGPT 3.5 but also slower, and it requires a paid account. It also has extended capabilities through plug-ins that give it the ability to interface with content from websites, perform more sophisticated mathematical functions, and access other services. A new Code Interpreter feature gives ChatGPT the ability to analyze data, create charts, solve math problems, edit files, and even develop hypotheses to explain data trends.

Microsoft Bing Chat. An iteration of Microsoft’s Bing search engine that is enhanced with OpenAI’s ChatGPT technology. It can browse websites and offers source citations with its results.

Google Bard. Google’s AI generates text, translates languages, writes different kinds of creative content, and writes and debugs code in more than 20 different programming languages. The tone and style of Bard’s replies can be finetuned to be simple, long, short, professional, or casual. Bard also leverages Google Lens to analyze images uploaded with prompts.

Anthropic Claude 2. A chatbot that can generate text, summarize content, and perform other tasks, Claude 2 can analyze texts of roughly 75,000 words—about the length of The Great Gatsby—and generate responses of more than 3,000 words. The model was built using a set of principles that serve as a sort of “constitution” for AI systems, with the aim of making them more helpful, honest, and harmless.

These AI systems have been improving at a remarkable pace, including in how well they perform on assessments of human knowledge. OpenAI’s GPT-3.5, which was released in March 2022, only managed to score in the 10th percentile on the bar exam, but GPT-4.0, introduced a year later, made a significant leap, scoring in the 90th percentile. What makes these feats especially impressive is that OpenAI did not specifically train the system to take these exams; the AI was able to come up with the correct answers on its own. Similarly, Google’s medical AI model substantially improved its performance on a U.S. Medical Licensing Examination practice test, with its accuracy rate jumping to 85 percent in March 2021 from 33 percent in December 2020.

These two examples prompt one to ask: if AI continues to improve so rapidly, what will these systems be able to achieve in the next few years? What’s more, new studies challenge the assumption that AI-generated responses are stale or sterile. In the case of Google’s AI model, physicians preferred the AI’s long-form answers to those written by their fellow doctors, and nonmedical study participants rated the AI answers as more helpful. Another study found that participants preferred a medical chatbot’s responses over those of a physician and rated them significantly higher, not just for quality but also for empathy. What will happen when “empathetic” AI is used in education?

Other studies have looked at the reasoning capabilities of these models. Microsoft researchers suggest that newer systems “exhibit more general intelligence than previous AI models” and are coming “strikingly close to human-level performance.” While some observers question those conclusions, the AI systems display an increasing ability to generate coherent and contextually appropriate responses, make connections between different pieces of information, and engage in reasoning processes such as inference, deduction, and analogy.

Despite their prodigious capabilities, these systems are not without flaws. At times, they churn out information that might sound convincing but is irrelevant, illogical, or entirely false—an anomaly known as “hallucination.” The execution of certain mathematical operations presents another area of difficulty for AI. And while these systems can generate well-crafted and realistic text, understanding why the model made specific decisions or predictions can be challenging.

The Importance of Well-Designed Prompts

Using generative AI systems such as ChatGPT, Bard, and Claude 2 is relatively simple. One has only to type in a request or a task (called a prompt), and the AI generates a response. Properly constructed prompts are essential for getting useful results from generative AI tools. You can ask generative AI to analyze text, find patterns in data, compare opposing arguments, and summarize an article in different ways (see sidebar for examples of AI prompts).

One challenge is that, after using search engines for years, people have been preconditioned to phrase questions in a certain way. A search engine is something like a helpful librarian who takes a specific question and points you to the most relevant sources for possible answers. The search engine (or librarian) doesn’t create anything new but efficiently retrieves what’s already there.

Generative AI is more akin to a competent intern. You give a generative AI tool instructions through prompts, as you would to an intern, asking it to complete a task and produce a product. The AI interprets your instructions, thinks about the best way to carry them out, and produces something original or performs a task to fulfill your directive. The results aren’t pre-made or stored somewhere—they’re produced on the fly, based on the information the intern (generative AI) has been trained on. The output often depends on the precision and clarity of the instructions (prompts) you provide. A vague or poorly defined prompt might lead the AI to produce less relevant results. The more context and direction you give it, the better the result will be. What’s more, the capabilities of these AI systems are being enhanced through the introduction of versatile plug-ins that equip them to browse websites, analyze data files, or access other services. Think of this as giving your intern access to a group of experts to help accomplish your tasks.

One strategy in using a generative AI tool is first to tell it what kind of expert or persona you want it to “be.” Ask it to be an expert management consultant, a skilled teacher, a writing tutor, or a copy editor, and then give it a task.

Prompts can also be constructed to get these AI systems to perform complex and multi-step operations. For example, let’s say a teacher wants to create an adaptive tutoring program—for any subject, any grade, in any language—that customizes the examples for students based on their interests. She wants each lesson to culminate in a short-response or multiple-choice quiz. If the student answers the questions correctly, the AI tutor should move on to the next lesson. If the student responds incorrectly, the AI should explain the concept again, but using simpler language.

Previously, designing this kind of interactive system would have required a relatively sophisticated and expensive software program. With ChatGPT, however, just giving those instructions in a prompt delivers a serviceable tutoring system. It isn’t perfect, but remember that it was built virtually for free, with just a few lines of English language as a command. And nothing in the education market today has the capability to generate almost limitless examples to connect the lesson concept to students’ interests.

Chained prompts can also help focus AI systems. For example, an educator can prompt a generative AI system first to read a practice guide from the What Works Clearinghouse and summarize its recommendations. Then, in a follow-up prompt, the teacher can ask the AI to develop a set of classroom activities based on what it just read. By curating the source material and using the right prompts, the educator can anchor the generated responses in evidence and high-quality research.

However, much like fledgling interns learning the ropes in a new environment, AI does commit occasional errors. Such fallibility, while inevitable, underlines the critical importance of maintaining rigorous oversight of AI’s output. Monitoring not only acts as a crucial checkpoint for accuracy but also becomes a vital source of real-time feedback for the system. It’s through this iterative refinement process that an AI system, over time, can significantly minimize its error rate and increase its efficacy.

Uses of AI in Education

In May 2023, the U.S. Department of Education released a report titled Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Teaching and Learning: Insights and Recommendations. The department had conducted listening sessions in 2022 with more than 700 people, including educators and parents, to gauge their views on AI. The report noted that “constituents believe that action is required now in order to get ahead of the expected increase of AI in education technology—and they want to roll up their sleeves and start working together.” People expressed anxiety about “future potential risks” with AI but also felt that “AI may enable achieving educational priorities in better ways, at scale, and with lower costs.”

AI could serve—or is already serving—in several teaching-and-learning roles:

Instructional assistants. AI’s ability to conduct human-like conversations opens up possibilities for adaptive tutoring or instructional assistants that can help explain difficult concepts to students. AI-based feedback systems can offer constructive critiques on student writing, which can help students fine-tune their writing skills. Some research also suggests certain kinds of prompts can help children generate more fruitful questions about learning. AI models might also support customized learning for students with disabilities and provide translation for English language learners.

Teaching assistants. AI might tackle some of the administrative tasks that keep teachers from investing more time with their peers or students. Early uses include automated routine tasks such as drafting lesson plans, creating differentiated materials, designing worksheets, developing quizzes, and exploring ways of explaining complicated academic materials. AI can also provide educators with recommendations to meet student needs and help teachers reflect, plan, and improve their practice.

Parent assistants. Parents can use AI to generate letters requesting individualized education plan (IEP) services or to ask that a child be evaluated for gifted and talented programs. For parents choosing a school for their child, AI could serve as an administrative assistant, mapping out school options within driving distance of home, generating application timelines, compiling contact information, and the like. Generative AI can even create bedtime stories with evolving plots tailored to a child’s interests.

Administrator assistants. Using generative AI, school administrators can draft various communications, including materials for parents, newsletters, and other community-engagement documents. AI systems can also help with the difficult tasks of organizing class or bus schedules, and they can analyze complex data to identify patterns or needs. ChatGPT can perform sophisticated sentiment analysis that could be useful for measuring school-climate and other survey data.

Though the potential is great, most teachers have yet to use these tools. A Morning Consult and EdChoice poll found that while 60 percent say they’ve heard about ChatGPT, only 14 percent have used it in their free time, and just 13 percent have used it at school. It’s likely that most teachers and students will engage with generative AI not through the platforms themselves but rather through AI capabilities embedded in software. Instructional providers such as Khan Academy, Varsity Tutors, and DuoLingo are experimenting with GPT-4-powered tutors that are trained on datasets specific to these organizations to provide individualized learning support that has additional guardrails to help protect students and enhance the experience for teachers.

Google’s Project Tailwind is experimenting with an AI notebook that can analyze student notes and then develop study questions or provide tutoring support through a chat interface. These features could soon be available on Google Classroom, potentially reaching over half of all U.S. classrooms. Brisk Teaching is one of the first companies to build a portfolio of AI services designed specifically for teachers—differentiating content, drafting lesson plans, providing student feedback, and serving as an AI assistant to streamline workflow among different apps and tools.

Providers of curriculum and instruction materials might also include AI assistants for instant help and tutoring tailored to the companies’ products. One example is the edX Xpert, a ChatGPT-based learning assistant on the edX platform. It offers immediate, customized academic and customer support for online learners worldwide.

Regardless of the ways AI is used in classrooms, the fundamental task of policymakers and education leaders is to ensure that the technology is serving sound instructional practice. As Vicki Phillips, CEO of the National Center on Education and the Economy, wrote, “We should not only think about how technology can assist teachers and learners in improving what they’re doing now, but what it means for ensuring that new ways of teaching and learning flourish alongside the applications of AI.”

The homescreen for OpenAI’s foundation-model generative artificial intelligence, ChatGPT, gives users three sample commands and a list of functions and caveats.
The homescreen for OpenAI’s foundation-model generative artificial intelligence, ChatGPT, gives users three sample commands and a list of functions and caveats. Introduced publicly in November 2022, ChatGPT can produce creative, human-like responses and analysis.

Challenges and Risks

Along with these potential benefits come some difficult challenges and risks the education community must navigate:

Student cheating. Students might use AI to solve homework problems or take quizzes. AI-generated essays threaten to undermine learning as well as the college-entrance process. Aside from the ethical issues involved in such cheating, students who use AI to do their work for them may not be learning the content and skills they need.

Bias in AI algorithms. AI systems learn from the data they are trained on. If this data contains biases, those biases can be learned and perpetuated by the AI system. For example, if the data include student-performance information that’s biased toward one ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic segment, the AI system could learn to favor students from that group. Less cited but still important are potential biases around political ideology and possibly even pedagogical philosophy that may generate responses not aligned to a community’s values.

Privacy concerns. When students or educators interact with generative-AI tools, their conversations and personal information might be stored and analyzed, posing a risk to their privacy. With public AI systems, educators should refrain from inputting or exposing sensitive details about themselves, their colleagues, or their students, including but not limited to private communications, personally identifiable information, health records, academic performance, emotional well-being, and financial information.

Decreased social connection. There is a risk that more time spent using AI systems will come at the cost of less student interaction with both educators and classmates. Children may also begin turning to these conversational AI systems in place of their friends. As a result, AI could intensify and worsen the public health crisis of loneliness, isolation, and lack of connection identified by the U.S. Surgeon General.

Overreliance on technology. Both teachers and students face the risk of becoming overly reliant on AI-driven technology. For students, this could stifle learning, especially the development of critical thinking. This challenge extends to educators as well. While AI can expedite lesson-plan generation, speed does not equate to quality. Teachers may be tempted to accept the initial AI-generated content rather than devote time to reviewing and refining it for optimal educational value.

Equity issues. Not all students have equal access to computer devices and the Internet. That imbalance could accelerate a widening of the achievement gap between students from different socioeconomic backgrounds.

Many of these risks are not new or unique to AI. Schools banned calculators and cellphones when these devices were first introduced, largely over concerns related to cheating. Privacy concerns around educational technology have led lawmakers to introduce hundreds of bills in state legislatures, and there are growing tensions between new technologies and existing federal privacy laws. The concerns over bias are understandable, but similar scrutiny is also warranted for existing content and materials that rarely, if ever, undergo review for racial or political bias.

In light of these challenges, the Department of Education has stressed the importance of keeping “humans in the loop” when using AI, particularly when the output might be used to inform a decision. As the department encouraged in its 2023 report, teachers, learners, and others need to retain their agency. AI cannot “replace a teacher, a guardian, or an education leader as the custodian of their students’ learning,” the report stressed.

Policy Challenges with AI

Policymakers are grappling with several questions related to AI as they seek to strike a balance between supporting innovation and protecting the public interest (see sidebar). The speed of innovation in AI is outpacing many policymakers’ understanding, let alone their ability to develop a consensus on the best ways to minimize the potential harms from AI while maximizing the benefits. The Department of Education’s 2023 report describes the risks and opportunities posed by AI, but its recommendations amount to guidance at best. The White House released a Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, but it, too, is more an aspirational statement than a governing document. Congress is drafting legislation related to AI, which will help generate needed debate, but the path to the president’s desk for signature is murky at best.

It is up to policymakers to establish clearer rules of the road and create a framework that provides consumer protections, builds public trust in AI systems, and establishes the regulatory certainty companies need for their product road maps. Considering the potential for AI to affect our economy, national security, and broader society, there is no time to waste.

Why AI Is Different

It is wise to be skeptical of new technologies that claim to revolutionize learning. In the past, prognosticators have promised that television, the computer, and the Internet, in turn, would transform education. Unfortunately, the heralded revolutions fell short of expectations. 

There are some early signs, though, that this technological wave might be different in the benefits it brings to students, teachers, and parents. Previous technologies democratized access to content and resources, but AI is democratizing a kind of machine intelligence that can be used to perform a myriad of tasks. Moreover, these capabilities are open and affordable—nearly anyone with an Internet connection and a phone now has access to an intelligent assistant. 

Generative AI models keep getting more powerful and are improving rapidly. The capabilities of these systems months or years from now will far exceed their current capacity. Their capabilities are also expanding through integration with other expert systems. Take math, for example. GPT-3.5 had some difficulties with certain basic mathematical concepts, but GPT-4 made significant improvement. Now, the incorporation of the Wolfram plug-in has nearly erased the remaining limitations. 

It’s reasonable to anticipate that these systems will become more potent, more accessible, and more affordable in the years ahead. The question, then, is how to use these emerging capabilities responsibly to improve teaching and learning. 

The paradox of AI may lie in its potential to enhance the human, interpersonal element in education. Aaron Levie, CEO of Box, a Cloud-based content-management company, believes that AI will ultimately help us attend more quickly to those important tasks “that only a human can do.” Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, similarly asserts that “successful schools are inevitably the product of the relationships between adults and students. When technology ignores that, it’s bound to disappoint. But when it’s designed to offer more coaching, free up time for meaningful teacher-student interaction, or offer students more personalized feedback, technology can make a significant, positive difference.” 

Technology does not revolutionize education; humans do. It is humans who create the systems and institutions that educate children, and it is the leaders of those systems who decide which tools to use and how to use them. Until those institutions modernize to accommodate the new possibilities of these technologies, we should expect incremental improvements at best. As Joel Rose, CEO of New Classrooms Innovation Partners, noted, “The most urgent need is for new and existing organizations to redesign the student experience in ways that take full advantage of AI’s capabilities.”

While past technologies have not lived up to hyped expectations, AI is not merely a continuation of the past; it is a leap into a new era of machine intelligence that we are only beginning to grasp. While the immediate implementation of these systems is imperfect, the swift pace of improvement holds promising prospects. The responsibility rests with human intervention—with educators, policymakers, and parents to incorporate this technology thoughtfully in a manner that optimally benefits teachers and learners. Our collective ambition should not focus solely or primarily on averting potential risks but rather on articulating a vision of the role AI should play in teaching and learning—a game plan that leverages the best of these technologies while preserving the best of human relationships.

John Bailey is a strategic adviser to entrepreneurs, policymakers, investors, and philanthropists and is a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

 

Policy Matters

Officials and lawmakers must grapple with several questions related to AI to protect students and consumers and establish the rules of the road for companies. Key issues include:

Risk management framework: What is the optimal framework for assessing and managing AI risks? What specific requirements should be instituted for higher-risk applications? In education, for example, there is a difference between an AI system that generates a lesson sample and an AI system grading a test that will determine a student’s admission to a school or program. There is growing support for using the AI Risk Management Framework from the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology as a starting point for building trustworthiness into the design, development, use, and evaluation of AI products, services, and systems.

Licensing and certification: Should the United States require licensing and certification for AI models, systems, and applications? If so, what role could third-party audits and certifications play in assessing the safety and reliability of different AI systems? Schools and companies need to begin thinking about responsible AI practices to prepare for potential certification systems in the future.

Centralized vs. decentralized AI governance: Is it more effective to establish a central AI authority or agency, or would it be preferable to allow individual sectors to manage their own AI-related issues? For example, regulating AI in autonomous vehicles is different from regulating AI in drug discovery or intelligent tutoring systems. Overly broad, one-size-fits-all frameworks and mandates may not work and could slow innovation in these sectors. In addition, it is not clear that many agencies have the authority or expertise to regulate AI systems in diverse sectors.

Privacy and content moderation: Many of the new AI systems pose significant new privacy questions and challenges. How should existing privacy and content-moderation frameworks, such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), be adapted for AI, and which new policies or frameworks might be necessary to address unique challenges posed by AI?

Transparency and disclosure: What degree of transparency and disclosure should be required for AI models, particularly regarding the data they have been trained on? How can we develop comprehensive disclosure policies to ensure that users are aware when they are interacting with an AI service?

 

 

How do I get it to work? Generative AI Example Prompts

Unlike traditional search engines, which use keyword indexing to retrieve existing information from a vast collection of websites, generative AI synthesizes the same information to create content based on prompts that are inputted by human users. With generative AI a new technology to the public, writing effective prompts for tools like ChatGPT may require trial and error. Here are some ideas for writing prompts for a variety of scenarios using generative AI tools:

Adaptive Tutoring

You are the StudyBuddy, an adaptive tutor. Your task is to provide a lesson on the basics of a subject followed by a quiz that is either multiple choice or a short answer. After I respond to the quiz, please grade my answer. Explain the correct answer. If I get it right, move on to the next lesson. If I get it wrong, explain the concept again using simpler language. To personalize the learning experience for me, please ask what my interests are. Use that information to make relevant examples throughout.

Mr. Ranedeer: Your Personalized AI Tutor

Coding and prompt engineering. Can configure for depth (Elementary – Postdoc), Learning Styles (Visual, Verbal, Active, Intuitive, Reflective, Global), Tone Styles (Encouraging, Neutral, Informative, Friendly, Humorous), Reasoning Frameworks (Deductive, Inductive, Abductive, Analogous, Casual). Template.

Socratic Tutor

You are a tutor that always responds in the Socratic style. You *never* give the student the answer but always try to ask just the right question to help them learn to think for themselves. You should always tune your question to the interest and knowledge of the student, breaking down the problem into simpler parts until it’s at just the right level for them.

Writing Feedback

I want you to act as an AI writing tutor. I will provide you with a student who needs help improving their writing, and your task is to use artificial intelligence tools, such as natural language processing, to give the student feedback on how they can improve their composition. You should also use your rhetorical knowledge and experience about effective writing techniques in order to suggest ways that the student can better express their thoughts and ideas in written form.

Quiz Generator

You are a quiz creator of highly diagnostic quizzes. You will make good low-stakes tests and diagnostics. You will then ask me two questions. First, (1) What, specifically, should the quiz test? Second, (2) For which audience is the quiz? Once you have my answers, you will construct several multiple-choice questions to quiz the audience on that topic. The questions should be highly relevant and go beyond just facts. Multiple choice questions should include plausible, competitive alternate responses and should not include an “all of the above” option. At the end of the quiz, you will provide an answer key and explain the right answer.

Example Generator

I would like you to act as an example generator for students. When confronted with new and complex concepts, adding many and varied examples helps students better understand those concepts. I would like you to ask what concept I would like examples of and what level of students I am teaching. You will look up the concept and then provide me with four different and varied accurate examples of the concept in action.

HBS Case Study

You will write a Harvard Business School case on the topic of Google managing AI, when subject to the Innovator’s Dilemma. Chain of thought: Step 1. Consider how these concepts relate to Google. Step 2: Write a case that revolves around a dilemma at Google about releasing a generative AI system that could compete with search.

What Questions Should I Ask?

What additional questions would a person seeking mastery of this topic ask?

Ground Lessons in Rigor

Read a WWC practice guide. Create a series of lessons over five days that are based on Recommendation 6. Create a 45-minunte lesson plan for Day 4.

Rewrite Parent Communications

The following is a draft letter to parents from a superintendent. Step 1: Rewrite it to make it easier to understand and more persuasive about the value of assessments. Step 2. Translate it into Spanish.

Request IEP Services

Write me a letter requesting the school district provide a 1:1 classroom aid be added to my 13-year-old son’s IEP. Base it on Virginia special education law and the least restrictive environment for a child with diagnoses of a Traumatic Brain Injury, PTSD, ADHD, and significant intellectual delay.

 

The post AI in Education appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49716825
As Many More States Enact Education Savings Accounts, Implementation Challenges Abound https://www.educationnext.org/many-more-states-enact-education-savings-accounts-implementation-challenges-abound-esas-choice-permitted-expenses/ Tue, 01 Aug 2023 09:00:13 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49716787 ESAs increase choice for families but leave administrators asking: Are pizza ovens, pianos permitted expenses?

The post As Many More States Enact Education Savings Accounts, Implementation Challenges Abound appeared first on Education Next.

]]>

Illustration

The year was 2014, and Doug Tuthill remembers taking a call from a top state lawmaker just after the Florida legislature had authorized its first education savings accounts—the type of state-funded school-choice program that is now fast rising to prominence around the country.

“The speaker called and said, ‘You have two months to implement it, and unfortunately, we didn’t allocate any administrative funding,’” recalled Tuthill, who since 2008 has been president of Step Up for Students, Florida’s leading private-school-scholarship organization. “That was my first experience of thinking about, okay, how do I do this?”

Tuthill wondered the same thing again in April of this year. That’s when Governor Ron DeSantis signed an overhaul of Florida’s complicated school-choice landscape to place a greater emphasis on education savings accounts, or ESAs.

By restructuring programs and lifting eligibility limits, the new law shifted the state’s choice priorities. Instead of mainly providing lower-income families and children with disabilities with private-school scholarships, the new system offers universal eligibility for the more expansive and parent-driven ESA option.

With the state relying mainly on the nonprofit Step Up for Students to run its school choice programs, Tuthill immediately began bracing for the number of Florida students with ESAs to rocket from some 70,000 during the 2022–23 academic year to five times that number just a few months later.

“What I’m looking at now is how to scale,” Tuthill said. “The most interesting part of the ESA discussion really isn’t being talked about, which is putting in place the infrastructure to be able to scale these things up.”

Step Up For Students president Doug Tuthill, who implemented Florida’s first ESA program in 2014, is now being tasked with expanding it for all families.
Step Up For Students president Doug Tuthill, who implemented Florida’s first ESA program in 2014, is now being tasked with expanding it for all families.

Implementation Woes

In his quest to construct a large, workable, and accountable ESA program quickly, Tuthill has plenty of company. As growing numbers of states, mostly Republican-led, embrace ESAs to support private schooling and parent choice, program managers around the country face similarly complex challenges.

Like Florida, the states of Arkansas, Iowa, and Utah have all enacted laws this year that would open ESAs—sometimes after a multiyear phase-in—to most if not all school-age children in their states. Those four followed Arizona and West Virginia, which started implementing similar universal programs in 2022.

That wave plus other legislative action in 2023 brought to 13 the number of states with one or more education savings account programs funded directly from state revenues. In addition, Missouri has an operating ESA program paid for through tax credits.

Amid this growth, controversies have flared over ESA implementation—most notably but not exclusively in Arizona.

Whether states jumping on the ESA bandwagon are prepared for the challenges that await them remains unclear. Lawmakers sometimes underestimate the practical obstacles to launching and growing ESA programs.

For example, the tension between ease of use for families and accountability for the governance of taxpayer funds resists simple solutions. The problem of defining—and policing—questionable expenses by families may spark both administrative confusion and contentious political debate. And scaling up programs that were manageable when smaller poses a major challenge—not only for administrators, but also for the public they serve.

In a bid to help states navigate this territory, the advocacy organization ExcelinEd has produced a detailed ESA implementation guide and convened a national network of ESA administrators to share best practices and lessons learned.

“I don’t think anyone administratively or on the vendor side has completely mastered this yet,” said Ben DeGrow, who supervises the network as a school-choice policy director at ExcelinEd. “It’s exciting to see more people getting into this space because we’re learning from each other. But we’re still on the learning curve.”

Managing Program Complexity

As ESA programs spread and expand, no state’s program looks exactly like another—and each may look different than it did the year before. Even programs that seem similar on the surface are more complex and distinctive than they appear to policymakers or the public.

“The reality is that each of these programs is unique” because “every state has its own laws,” said Joseph Connor, the founder and CEO of Odyssey, a company created to administer ESAs and education “microgrant” programs. “Every state has its own set of parents and vendors who are going to want their own thing. It’s one of the most complex programs that a state can run.”

Rather than simply subsidizing the cost of sending children to private schools—as vouchers and tax-credit scholarships tend to do—ESAs are typically structured to give families greater latitude in spending the state money deposited into their accounts.

Details on allowable education expenses vary. ESAs usually let families not only pay for private school but also purchase an array of other products and services: curriculum materials, tutoring, textbooks, therapy, enrichment classes, sports equipment, school supplies, and more.

This flexibility makes the program attractive to homeschoolers, but it can be hard for administrators to draw clear-cut boundaries between genuine education expenses and recreational or general family use.

Officials who implement ESA programs face multiple responsibilities, such as marketing to parents, determining their eligibility, and orienting them to the program. Other crucial duties include defining and communicating what qualifies as allowable expenses, developing systems for disbursing funds, and supplying technical assistance to families and service providers.

Building processes that attend to these details and stand up to scrutiny—without unduly burdening users—is a challenge that can make or break a program.

“There’s a lot of moving parts,” said Robert Enlow, the president of EdChoice, a research organization that tracks and advocates for ESAs and other K–12 options beyond district-run public schools. “It’s exciting, and there’s a lot of opportunity, but it’s a lot of hard work.”

Striking a Balance

A common tension in states with ESA programs is the trade-off between convenience for parents on the one hand and accountability for public tax dollars on the other. Advocates say states can strike the right balance, with some supporters arguing that states should err on the side of flexibility.

“The underlying theory is we have to trust families and parents to make those decisions and try not to bring down the hand of government until and unless there’s obvious evidence of fraud,” said Garrett Ballengee, the executive director of the Cardinal Institute for West Virginia Policy, a think tank that champions that state’s ESA program. “And I think that’s probably the right approach to it. Going too far on the rules and regulations side kind of corrupts the original intent.”

In states with ESA programs, officials may not be required to collect, categorize, and report on how exactly families are using their dollars. “We don’t report out as a matter of course on how much people spend on tutoring versus technology, for instance,” said Kathryn Marker, who runs the division of the North Carolina State Education Assistance Authority that administers that state’s ESA program. “We’re not required to report that.”

Jessica Levin, director of Public Funds Public Schools, cites lack of transparency as a reason for opposing ESAs.
Jessica Levin, director of Public Funds Public Schools, cites lack of transparency as a reason for opposing ESAs.

For those who oppose ESAs, the lack of such reporting requirements counts among the many strikes against the accounts. “There are no regulations or set of requirements or guardrails that can make these programs a good idea or a good public policy,” said Jessica Levin, the director of Public Funds Public Schools, an advocacy campaign affiliated with the Education Law Center that opposes government funding for private schooling and has mounted legal challenges to state ESA programs.

Levin sees as problematic that ESA programs “generally have very little to no requirements in the realm of transparency and accountability for the use of the public funds.” She decried a lack of data on exactly who is using the money, what they’re spending it on, how much misuse has been detected, and what the consequences of any misuse have been. The reports that have come out about questionable use of ESA funds, she said, are “extremely concerning.”

Pizza Ovens, Kayaks, Chicken Coops

In Arizona, the questionable spending of ESA funds has long been a contentious issue. For example, the program came under fire in 2018 after a state auditor reported $700,000 in improper spending, most of which had not been recovered. ESA supporters pointed out that the reported misspending represented only about 1 percent of the then $62 million program—but critics were not mollified.

As Arizona transitioned in 2022–23 from an ESA program limited to certain student subgroups to universal eligibility, the problematic use of funds drew national attention.

With headlines fueling perceptions of parent purchases that were only tenuously tied to education, Christine Accurso, the Arizona Department of Education’s ESA director, has moved on several fronts to improve administration. For example, the program has published lists of allowable and “disallowable” expenditures (see sidebar below).

In a March memo to the state board of education, Accurso noted that under the prior administration, the department had approved ESA spending on everything from pools, greenhouses, garden sheds, and grills to chicken coops, kayaks, baby grand pianos, pizza ovens, and large trampolines.

“We cannot justify, to an auditor, noneducational use of taxpayer funds,” Accurso wrote. “If we were to continue with such a policy, we would be sanctioned by the auditor, the program would fall into disrepute, and Arizona’s role both within the state and as the first in the nation and example to the rest of the country, would be ruined.”

A strong school-choice supporter who used an ESA herself as a parent, Accurso successfully campaigned against a ballot referendum drive in 2022 aimed at blocking the ESA program expansion. Afterward she won an appointment by State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne to run Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account program.

The Arizona Department of Education has published detailed lists of Education Savings Account expenses that are and are not permitted.

A Model—or a Cautionary Tale?

Since Accurso took office in January, the department’s rulemaking and enforcement efforts have sparked sharp criticism from both opponents who want the ESA expansion repealed and families who use and support the program.

Save Our Schools Arizona, which advocates for public schools and opposes the 2022 ESA program expansion, argues that ongoing disputes over implementing the broader program prove it has become, as the organization’s executive director, Beth Lewis, puts it, “too big to succeed.”

Lewis said that the program is “wide open” for fraud. “It is interesting to watch my taxpayer dollars be used to build a garden in everybody’s backyard, when my public school can’t afford one,” she said. “It’s just this unspoken rule of, if you see it in a public school, then it’s approvable.”

Other states should view Arizona’s move to universal eligibility not as a model but as a cautionary tale, Lewis argues. She sees evidence of that happening in states such as Arkansas and Iowa, where newly passed laws call for incremental, multiyear expansions before getting to universal eligibility.

“I think they looked at Arizona and saw that this is a complete disaster and is not serving families well,” Lewis said. “There’s no way to ensure transparency. And they said, ‘Well, at the very least, we need to phase this in.’”

School-choice advocates tend to defend Arizona and see its uneven expansion process as par for the course when states try something different to promote educational freedom.

“We’re not trying to create something that’s easy to administer,” said Heritage Foundation education policy scholar Jonathan Butcher. “We’re not doing this for the department of education; we’re doing this for the families.” Still, he added, “Arizona’s story offers a lot of dos and don’ts.”

Before Christine Accurso became the Arizona Department of Education’s ESA director, she campaigned against an effort to block ESA expansion in the state.
Before Christine Accurso became the Arizona Department of Education’s ESA director, she campaigned against an effort to block ESA expansion in the state.

Flashpoint: Approving Expenses

Figuring out how to define allowable expenses and police ESA spending is one key challenge for which Arizona’s story may prove instructive to other states.

In 2019, Arizona contracted with the company ClassWallet to facilitate ESA transactions on its online spending-management portal. ClassWallet is also used by ESA programs in Indiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, and North Carolina.

ClassWallet stresses that its role is not to set the rules for what constitutes acceptable expenses. “We are 100 percent not the arbiter of any programmatic decisions whatsoever,” said CEO Jamie Rosenberg. “We are simply a technology that is configured by the client.”

Regarding allowable expenses, Accurso advises families that “as long as it’s typically known as an educational item, you’re going to purchase those with no problem. If there’s something that’s not typically known as an educational item, then all they have to do is send us the curriculum with the materials list on it that shows that those items are needed.”

The Arizona Department of Education is, in theory, charged with approving all purchases using ESA funds, but Accurso said she inherited a backlog of more than 170,000 unapproved expense orders, more than 50,000 of which had no receipts attached or such scanty receipts that her staff must call vendors to verify purchases item by item.

Until ClassWallet came in, families primarily accessed ESA funds through prepaid debit cards. Accurso favors halting that practice, and shortly after taking office she announced that, in the interest of curbing misspending, no new cards would be issued. Still, amid strong advocacy from parents opposed to ending debit cards, the department has allowed families who already had such cards to keep them.

“The administrative burden of a prepaid debit card is huge,” Accurso said. Minimizing misuse becomes harder “when a parent can swipe the debit card and the money is out the door with no accountability until the receipts are received.”

Such a process became untenable after the program swelled, Accurso said. A “tsunami” of new applicants hit after expansion to universal eligibility in late September 2022, she noted. The number of Arizona ESAs rose to more than 60,000 by mid-June 2023 from 13,000 the previous September, and Accurso expects another wave to hit in 2023–24.

While ClassWallet allows for debit cards, its platform was basically designed to replace them. “Among our clients, Arizona is the only client that uses our debit-card feature,” Rosenberg said. The company’s “digital wallet,” he added, offers guardrails and compliance mechanisms that a debit-card system lacks.

Parents in Arizona have more than one way to access ESA funds. They can use their ESA digital wallet to shop on ClassWallet’s online “marketplace” for products from an array of vendors, including giant retailers such as Amazon or Staples and education companies such as Scholastic or Lakeshore Learning.

Families can also directly pay vendors and education-service providers that have registered to be part of the ClassWallet portal. Such payments may go for tuition, private school expenses, tutors, paraprofessionals, school uniforms, and more. To use vendors or providers that are not on the ClassWallet portal, parents may pay out-of-pocket and then submit the receipts and any required documentation for reimbursement.

Jenny Clark (top left), shown with supporters of her Arizona nonprofit Love Your School, was appointed to the state board of education in 2022.
Jenny Clark (top left), shown with supporters of her Arizona nonprofit Love Your School, was appointed to the state board of education in 2022. She is a vocal proponent of parents pushing limits and retaining flexibility in how they choose to spend their families’ ESA funds.

Families Want Flexibility

Some of the Arizona program’s new spending-accountability measures had been on the books before but were not enforced, Accurso said. “A lot of people who’ve been in the program for a long time are pushing back, very upset” that rules are now being applied, because parents “never had to do these things before,” she said.

Among those pushing back is Jenny Clark, the founding CEO of Love Your School, an Arizona nonprofit launched to help families navigate school options. In 2022, Clark won gubernatorial appointment to the state board of education. While fiercely supportive of the ESA program, she does see opportunity for improving the way the program is administered.

“The program is working very well for families who are utilizing those dollars for traditional school options, whether that’s a micro school or a private school—things that are pretty easy and require less transactions,” said Clark, a mother of five. “For families like myself—I have some kids in private school and then I have other kids that are home educated—we’re customizing and building out for them a very unique and curated education. That requires a lot of different purchases, and it requires a lot of flexibility with our ESA.”

After Accurso came out against issuing new debit cards, the department was flooded with email messages and state board testimony from parents who shared Clark’s view that the cards—about 16,000 of which are in circulation—are “very, very important for us to navigate the program successfully.”

Clark says it is valuable for parents to push the bounds of allowable expenses and to appeal rejections to the state board. She wants Arizona to take a broad-minded approach to what qualifies as educational and hopes other states will do the same.

“Policymakers need to understand that the utilization of these programs is going to be directly related to allowable expenses,” she said. “We don’t want to set so many barriers that we make the program difficult to use for the people that need it the most.”

Smaller, Targeted Programs

When asked which ESA programs should serve as models, national school-choice advocates tend to point to programs that are smaller and more targeted than the broad programs that are operating or being launched in states such as Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, and Utah.

Two smaller ESA programs are those in New Hampshire, which is focused on children from low- and moderate-income families, and North Carolina, which serves children with disabilities.

Besides being targeted rather than universal, both programs are run by entities with years of experience operating other school-choice programs for their states. Neither uses prepaid debit cards. And despite growing rapidly in recent years, each serves between 3,100 and 3,300 students.

“We’re lucky in New Hampshire because our program is small,” said Kate Baker Demers, executive director of Children’s Scholarship Fund New Hampshire, which runs the state’s Education Freedom Accounts program. “My team can put human eyes on everything. It’s not unwieldy in any way.”

In North Carolina, staff at the State Education Assistance Authority, which has long disbursed financial aid for higher education, personally approve ESA expenses via the ClassWallet platform.

“If there’s been an error, it’s not on the families’ part. We are pre-approving 100 percent before it’s spent,” said Marker of the North Carolina authority. “I can’t say we will never, ever have a misuse of funds, but we’ve got a pretty tight process.”

Although New Hampshire’s Demers said that “implementers in other states are calling and asking me for advice,” she does not have easy answers for those looking to scale up a spending-management system like hers to much larger programs.

Marker agrees, but said she is nonetheless trying to prepare should lawmakers expand the program. “If North Carolina wants to do that, we will try to do it with excellence,” she said. “It’s just prudent to look at our technology, look at our staffing model. We’re watching what’s happening around the country, and we’ll try to be ready.”

Getting the Technology Right

Some school-choice advocates are heartened by growth in companies working to automate and streamline various aspects of operating ESA programs. Besides applying lessons from other school-choice mechanisms such as tax-credit scholarships, vendors are eyeing government programs in sectors including health care, food assistance, and natural-disaster aid. Some also are adopting financial technology practices used in products such as Venmo or Zelle.

“Expansive ESAs represent a new sector, and the technological demands are constantly increasing,” said Mark Duran, co-founder and CEO of Student First Technologies, which is working to build on its experience with tax-credit scholarships and microgrant programs to win more ESA contracts.

Duran said his company is trying to anticipate future needs, in part by augmenting its ESA platform with artificial-intelligence and machine-learning features to systemize and automate expense verification.

“I wouldn’t say anybody, including us, has completely figured out an ESA solution. Nobody’s doing it perfectly yet,” Duran said. “If you’ve built your tech right, you can reuse different elements, but it has to be modular in the sense that you have to be able to customize it on a state-to-state basis.”

In Florida, Tuthill learned that lesson firsthand when Step Up for Students agreed to power West Virginia’s ESA program rollout in 2022. Halted midstream by a court injunction that was ultimately lifted, implementation of the program consumed so much time that Tuthill says he’s now more cautious about customizing his platform for other states—especially in light of the big changes underway in his home state.

Tuthill says the Step Up for Students platform, Education Market Assistant (EMA), has about “20 different apps” working behind the scenes. “I’ve got artificial intelligence partners. I’ve got software development partners,” he said.

Increasing the level of automation will be vital, given the Florida program’s impending growth, as Tuthill sees it, and working out the kinks must be a priority.

“States are calling us continuously,” Tuthill said. “I have to get to the point where I can scale in Florida but also be able to cut and paste my infrastructure in Florida and use it in other states.”

ESA Pitfalls

Many supporters of school choice urge close attention to infrastructure and lessons learned in places such as Florida and Arizona. But not everyone is convinced that applying those lessons will be enough to ensure that the latest iteration of school choice won’t end up as another failed fad.

Beth Lewis of Save Our Schools Arizona sees ESA expansion as an invitation to defraud taxpayers with non-education-related expenses.
Beth Lewis of Save Our Schools Arizona sees ESA expansion as an invitation to defraud taxpayers with non-education-related expenses.

In a piece explaining why he is wary of universal education savings accounts, veteran analyst Chester E. Finn Jr. said he expects ESAs to face woes afflicting other school-choice programs. Those include parents who make dubious education decisions, shoddy startup schools, and “the education version of waste, fraud, and abuse.”

Finn, a distinguished senior fellow at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, noted that universal ESA programs carry risks: windfalls for well-off parents who could afford to pay for private schools on their own; entrepreneurs’ setting up new schools in wealthy areas and ignoring poorer ones; “and the use of ESA dollars by parents to purchase things with, at best, a hazy relationship to K–12 education—tickets to amusement parks, trampolines, and such. It doesn’t take many such extravagances to put a cloud over the whole policy.”

Other choice supporters see such fears as overblown. Enlow of EdChoice said he gets “really frustrated” by predictions of negative publicity eroding support for ESAs.

“I keep hearing this kind of panic about a bad story,” Enlow said. “There have been bad stories in Florida, but they’ve expanded their programs. I don’t want to make policy based on someone’s worry about a bad story.”

Arizona, to be sure, has seen its share of such stories. “People are not happy,” said Lewis of Save Our Schools Arizona, which portrays ESAs as thinly disguised vouchers that divert money from underfunded public schools and invite profiteering. “They don’t like the idea of people using taxpayer dollars to buy chicken coops and trampolines and gardens and home gyms and all of this stuff that could be justified as an educational expense.”

Similarly, she questions families’ use of ESA funds for “zoo trips and bounce memberships” when “most of our public-school students only get to go on field trips every few years. It is a very cavalier statement to say public schools do it all the time, so I should get to do it.”

Jason Bedrick, a research fellow in the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy, regards comparisons to public school purchases as fair play. From theme-park tickets to backyard sports equipment, he said, “all of these things are things that public schools are buying.”

“Go to SeaWorld, and you’ll see a whole bunch of school buses out front. What do you think those school buses are from? Those are called public-school field trips. And you’ll see the same thing at other aquariums and museums and even amusement parks,” Bedrick said. “Kayaks, trampolines, you will find these in public-school athletic programs.”

What’s Ultimately at Stake

The differences that divide Lewis and Bedrick will undoubtedly persist as states move forward with their visions of ESAs for all. Policy debates over public funding for education—and how much say parents should have over how that money is spent—will remain unsettled for the foreseeable future.

It is possible, of course, that the positions on ESAs that taxpayers and their elected representatives ultimately embrace will not be determined by how well administrators carry out their tasks of turning policy into practice.

But in Florida, where Doug Tuthill is working to carry out the wishes of policymakers for a dramatic ESA expansion, that’s not how the situation feels. There, the stakes of getting implementation right couldn’t seem higher.

“For me, the holy grail is: if you can’t scale it, it’s not really going to do anything. So, the question is, can you build an infrastructure that creates a public education system that’s built around customization?” Tuthill said. “That’s really what this is about. It’s about how do we move from a one-size-fits-all, industrial model of education to a much more decentralized, customized model, but do it in a way that continues to serve the public good? It’s a fascinating, fascinating issue. But the infrastructure to scale it is really where you’re going to win or lose.”

Caroline Hendrie is an independent journalist based in Maryland.

The post As Many More States Enact Education Savings Accounts, Implementation Challenges Abound appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49716787
Behind Biden Administration’s Retreat on Race and School Discipline, Real Concern on Student Behavior https://www.educationnext.org/behind-biden-administrations-retreat-on-race-and-school-discipline-real-concern-on-student-behavior/ Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:00:32 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49716791 Even the teachers are alarmed about fights, violence

The post Behind Biden Administration’s Retreat on Race and School Discipline, Real Concern on Student Behavior appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
The U.S. Department of Education headquarters in Washington, D.C.
The U.S. Department of Education headquarters in Washington, D.C.

As k-12 schools officials struggle to address a post-Covid surge of student misbehavior and violence, they must also navigate rapid swings in civil rights directives from the U.S. Department of Education. A decade ago, the Obama administration issued lengthy guidelines on bullying, sexual harassment, and racial disparities in school discipline. It also launched hundreds of protracted investigations to enforce these demands. The Trump administration withdrew many of these guidelines, and substantially reduced the number of systemic investigations. The Biden administration has promised to return to a more aggressive approach to civil rights rulemaking and enforcement. A year ago, the Department of Education proposed new rules on sexual harassment, and announced new guidelines on discipline for students with disabilities. In May 2023 the departments of Justice and Education took yet another step, releasing a policy statement with the enigmatic title, “Resources on Confronting Racial Discrimination in Student Discipline.”

Neither a formal regulation or even a standard guidance document, “Resources” describes 14 investigations of school discipline practices completed by the Department of Education between 2012 and 2022. It includes an account of an academy in Arizona that told a student with an Afro to get a haircut. It also include the case of a school district in Utah that referred a Black student to law enforcement while giving a white student a conference for the same offense. Oddly, the two departments insist upon the limited legal significance of their report: “It does not constitute final agency action, and it does not have an immediate and direct legal effect. It does not create any new rights or obligations, and it is not enforceable. Neither the Departments’ investigations nor the summaries included below constitute a binding precedent.” “This document,” they explain, “is for informational and technical purposes only.” What guidance, then, does this report offer? Largely a set of steps school districts can take to stay in the departments’ good graces.

To understand the ongoing controversy over school discipline mandates, it is important to recognize just how limited the federal government’s power is in this area. Outside of special education, the federal government only has authority to prohibit disciplinary practices that discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, or sex. (The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, in contrast, creates specific rules for disciplining students with individualized education plans). In 2014 the Obama administration launched an aggressive effort to substantially curtail use of out-of-school disciplinary measures (that is, suspensions and expulsions), which many claim have no educational value and contribute to the “school-to-prison pipeline.” But the only way federal regulators could address the issue was by claiming that these punishments were being applied in a racially discriminatory manner.

There is no question that if school officials punish a Black student more harshly than a similarly situated white student, they have engaged in unlawful discrimination and violated Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But what does “similarly situated” mean? Not only that the two students engaged in the same type and degree of misconduct, but also that they had a similar history of prior transgressions. Proving “different treatment” requires detailed investigation of individual cases. Given the subjective nature of many forms of misbehavior and the fact that most such behavior is viewed only by a few people, seldom are these easy calls. Consequently, the Obama administration’s 2014 Dear Colleague Letter announced that schools “also violate Federal law when they evenhandedly implement facially neutral policies and practices that, although not adopted with the intent to discriminate, nonetheless have an unjustified effect of discriminating on the basis of race.” A school’s disciplinary policies and practices would be deemed to have an “adverse impact” on minority students if those students are “disproportionately” punished at higher rates or “subject to longer sanctions or more severe penalties.” Once that prima facie case has been made, the school bears the burden of demonstrating that its policy is “necessary to meet an important educational goal,” and that there exist no “comparably effective alternative policies or practices that would meet the school’s stated educational goal with less of a burden or adverse impact on the disproportionately affected racial group.” The Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights explained that it would take a particularly hard look at policies that “impose mandatory suspension, expulsion or citations” for specified offenses, especially truancy. Such punishments, federal regulators strongly suggested, are seldom either “necessary” or “effective.”

Black students are subject to disciplinary action more frequently than white, Asian, or Hispanic students. This might be the result of discrimination, but it might also be a consequence of difference in socio-economic status, family structure, neighborhood influences, youth subcultures, and policies adopted by schools in high-crime areas. Although the 2014 Dear Colleague Letter acknowledged that racial disparities “may be caused by a range of factors,” its “disparate impact” analysis said little about them. Its primary goal was to curtail the use of out-of-school punishments. The Trump administration withdrew that Dear Colleague Letter in 2018. The Biden administration subsequently announced that the withdrawal was “under review.”

The 2014 Dear Colleague Letter was announced by the Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon. When she was nominated to regain that position in 2021, she told a Senate committee, “it’s crucial to reinstate guidance on the topic.” What is most notable about the 2023 document, though, is the extent to which it backs away both from the 2014 Dear Colleague Letter’s “disparate impact” analysis and from its blanket condemnation of out-of-school punishments. Helpful suggestions have replaced legally binding obligations. Although this shift does not preclude a return to the aggressive enforcement strategy of the Obama administration, it does seem to signal a more conciliatory federal approach to discipline issues as public schools struggle to respond to heightened levels of violence and misbehavior.

By focusing on case resolutions that span the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations, the report seeks to downplay the obvious policy shifts of the past decade. Most of the policy changes recommended in the report are sensible and relatively uncontroversial. They include

  • Collecting and regularly reviewing data on disciplinary actions to identify possible discrimination;
  • Establishing clearer, less subjective rules on what constitutes misconduct and appropriate the punishments for various levels of misconduct;
  • Making sure that school policies are consistent with state law;
  • Reducing the role of School Resource Officials (i.e. law enforcement personnel with arrest power located within schools) in routine disciplinary matters;
  • Improving communications with parents, especially those with limited English proficiency;
  • Developing alternatives to out-of-school punishments;
  • Providing better training to school personnel;
  • Hiring more school counselors and mental health professionals; and
  • Providing students with “tutoring, afterschool and summer learning, and enrichment programs to help students make meaningful academic and behavioral progress.”

Note that most of these items are worthy aspirations, not enforceable rules. Whether schools will have the resources and the commitment to put them into effect is one big question. How the Department of Education will try to nudge them in that direction is another.

Why has the department retreated from its hardline 2014 stance? Perhaps the White House has pressured the department to avoid hot-button educational issues prior to the 2024 election—as it seems to have done with the department’s recent proposal on transgender students’ assignment to sports teams. So far, though, we have little information on the nature of the debate within the administration. Nonetheless, it is possible to identify four factors that likely influenced its deliberations.

The first is growing alarm among school officials and parents about post-Covid disorder in our schools. According to a report by the Brookings Institution’s Brown Center, “Schools across the country are reporting increased levels of misbehavior, including fights and more serious acts of violence.” A survey conducted by Education Week’s Research Center found that “nearly half of all school and district leaders (44 percent) say they are receiving more threats of violence by students now than they did in the fall of 2019 . . . [T]wo out of three teachers, principals, and district leaders say that students are misbehaving more these days than they did in the fall of 2019.” In this context, restricting the availability of disciplinary measures would encounter strong resistance.

The second is concern among rank-and-file teachers about their own safety and the difficulty of maintaining order in classrooms and hallways. The department’s 2014 Dear Colleague Letter initially received support from the national leadership of teachers’ unions, but eventually drew angry opposition from teachers subject to lengthy investigations and restrictions on out-of-school punishments. With teachers facing greater threats of violence within the classroom, such opposition could not be ignored—especially since it comes from a key Democratic constituency.

Third, initial research on the main alternative to out-of-school punishments—restorative justice—found that this approach to dealing with misbehavior falls far short of its supporters’ expectations. Subsequent to the 2014 Dear Colleague Letter, the RAND Corporation sponsored two randomized control studies comparing schools that instituted restorative justice programs with those that employed traditional disciplinary practices. RAND’s study of several schools in Maine found that “the middle-school student who received Restorative Practices Intervention did not report more school connectedness, better school climate, more positive peer relationships and developmental outcomes or less victimization than students in control schools did.” A second, more extensive study of schools in Pittsburgh found that the number and length of suspensions declined in elementary schools instituting restorative justice programs. However,

Despite fewer suspensions, academic outcomes did not improve in PERC schools [those instituting restorative justice programs]. At the middle grade level (grades 6-8) academic outcomes actually worsened in the treatment schools. Neither did we find fewer suspensions in middle grades. . . . We did not see fewer suspensions for male students, for students with individual education plans, or for incidents of violence or weapons violation. Neither did we see a reduction in arrests.

According to a summary of the evidence in The Hechinger Report, “The biggest insight from the Maine study was how hard it is for schools to implement restorative justice even after days of teacher training, monthly consultations and visits by coaches.”

Finally, studies of the implementation of the Obama administration’s policies found a wide gap between the policies announced in formal agreements between school leaders and federal officials on the one hand, and the actual practices of teachers and principals on the other. Within a single school district, compliance and reporting differed substantially from one school to another. That experience suggests that without substantial support from teachers and principals on the front lines, directives on discipline from Washington are likely to be ignored.

The fact that federal regulators have addressed the school discipline issue by describing the results of past investigations rather than by issuing explicit rules emphasizes the central role that such investigations play in federal civil rights policy. Especially during the Obama administration, the Department of Education has used lengthy and intrusive investigations to pressure schools to sign detailed resolution agreements. The process was the punishment, and federal policy was in effect the sum of these individually negotiated agreements. The May 2023 report does little to constrain the Department of Education. But it seems to indicate that the department has adopted a more nuanced and pragmatic approach to the school discipline issue than it did a decade ago.

Shep Melnick is the Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr. Professor of American Politics at Boston College and author, most recently, of The Crucible of Desegregation: The Uncertain Search for Educational Equality (University of Chicago Press, 2023).

The post Behind Biden Administration’s Retreat on Race and School Discipline, Real Concern on Student Behavior appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49716791
The Great Unbundling https://www.educationnext.org/great-unbundling-is-parents-rights-movement-opening-new-frontier-school-choice/ Tue, 18 Jul 2023 09:00:37 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49716752 Is the parents’ rights movement opening a new frontier in school choice?

The post The Great Unbundling appeared first on Education Next.

]]>

IllustrationThe mindsets of parents are changing—rapidly—as they make decisions about the schooling of their children. Over the past few years, a convergence of two megatrends—pandemic desperation and parental-rights politics—has driven many families to reconsider the traditional school model and find ways of “unbundling” their children’s schooling into discrete elements that are controlled by the parent rather than the school.

While parent-led unbundling is not a new phenomenon, the current movement has expanded so quickly that it’s been dubbed “the Great Unbundling” of K–12 schooling.

The traditional K–12 schooling model is a “bundled” product that provides parents with an all-in-one package of services: instruction, transportation, lunch, extracurriculars, and athletics, all delivered by one provider in one location: the school. Historically, parental choice has been limited to selecting from among different schools—neighborhood, magnet, or, for those with the means, private schools. In the 1990s, states started passing legislation that defined school choice in these “whole school” terms, with charters, vouchers, and scholarships providing families with alternatives to schools operated by their local district.

In response to the widespread school closures sparked by the Covid-19 pandemic in early 2020, many parents opted for a pick-and-choose, customized approach to schooling that they hoped could fill gaps in the remote learning opportunities their local districts were providing.

While pandemic desperation may have catalyzed the Great Unbundling, a burgeoning “parents’ rights” movement has propelled it forward. This movement has emerged as a potent political force in many states and school districts, as parents assert that they have a right to opt out of individual components of their schools’ curricula and substitute learning materials and experiences that are aligned with their own values and beliefs. In a nation that is divided over cultural and partisan values, many parents who object to school programs and materials related to race, gender identity, sexuality, evolution, and the interpretation of history are choosing to substitute curricula that reflect their own views.

The Great Unbundling is now influencing the education marketplace, as a broad set of nonschool vendors have responded to this unprecedented demand by pitching their education services directly to families: “microschools,” online courses, private tutoring, learning pods, and outdoor learning experiences. A family might purchase reading instruction from Sylvan, world language instruction from Rosetta Stone, math tutoring from Kumon, and a physical education course from the local YMCA, while having the whole package curated by an organization such as Coursemojo.

In the view of many school leaders, unbundling is not simply a temporary phenomenon driven by the exigencies of the pandemic. Monishae O’Neill, principal of the Elementary Academy at the Drew Charter School in Atlanta, sees unbundling as an integral part of her school’s program. “Unbundling definitely became a necessity for our school during the Covid-19 quarantine of 2020,” O’Neill said, “and although we’ve now transitioned back to in-person learning, unbundling has remained at our school in various forms.”

Parent-Led Phenomenon

Unbundling has been with us for a long time. Upper-income families, even those opting for public schools, have for generations supplemented their children’s education with afterschool enrichment programs—ballet, karate, tutoring, museum trips, music lessons, and more. Education writers such as Rick Hess and Tom Vander Ark have long highlighted the potential for schools and districts to unbundle their programming to better serve their communities.

However, what is undeniably new about the Great Unbundling is that it is a parent-led, demand-driven phenomenon that has exploded into prominence because of the choices and decisions of parents in communities across the country. There were no master plans from district superintendents; no mandates from state education secretaries; no edicts from the U.S. Department of Education. The trend has been directly fueled by parents demanding the ability to unbundle their children’s education. State legislators and the schooling marketplace were driven to respond.

Table 1: Market Forces Driving UnbundlingIn community after community, a powerful set of market dynamics drove the ascendancy of the Great Unbundling. Initially they arose from the demand side of the market, with parents seeking out new types of providers. The supply side of the market responded with new models, new services, and increased capabilities to meet burgeoning parent demand (see Table 1).

Unbundling has affected all sectors of the schooling marketplace: private schools, charter schools, and district-operated public schools. In the early months of the pandemic, unbundling was most pronounced among upper-income families that had the resources to purchase supplemental services in much the same way home-schooling parents have always done. However, as the pandemic wore on, more families from all socioeconomic groups began to see unbundling as a means of enhancing and improving their children’s education.

Caprice Young, a former president of the Los Angeles Unified School District board and now president of the consulting firm Education Growth Group, sees today’s unbundling as an expansion of an existing trend. “While unbundling existed before the pandemic, it completely exploded during the pandemic as parents paid attention—sometimes for the first time—to new options for their child’s education,” Young said.

Education service providers responded to the surge in parent demand for supplementary, unbundled services by expanding their programs. Eric Isselhardt, CEO of the New England Science and Sailing Foundation in Connecticut, has seen demand for the organization’s programming grow dramatically. “The unbundling phenomenon of the past few years has brought new families and new students into our programs, driving us to expand our operations and direct relationships with parents,” he said.

Students study green crabs up close in New London, Connecticut, with the New England Science and Sailing Foundation’s travel program.
Students study green crabs up close in New London, Connecticut, with the New England Science and Sailing Foundation’s travel program. Such opportunities are becoming more accessible substitutes to traditional classroom instruction as part of “the Great Unbundling.”

The Politics of “Parents’ Rights”

The scope and scale of the Great Unbundling have been fueled and shaped by a sharp rise in parents’ asserting their “rights” to directly control discrete elements of their children’s education. Increasingly, parents are claiming the right to opt out of individual components of a school’s curriculum and substitute learning materials that are aligned with their values, while keeping their children enrolled in school.

Controversies over critical race theory, evolution, sex education, gender identity, testing and grading, and other topics have driven parents to demand changes in their schools’ programs or exclude their children from them. In the 2022 survey of the American School District Panel, a standing group of school district and charter management organization leaders, 51 percent of respondents reported that parent or community polarization around controversial topics was interfering with their ability to educate students. School districts have been overwhelmed with Freedom of Information requests related to curriculum content, and school boards have fielded communications from a variety of parent advocacy groups.

The first stirrings of the parents’ rights movement predate Covid, and the phenomenon was founded in legal and political motivations rather than the pandemic. In 2021 and 2022, gubernatorial races in Virginia, Florida, and Arkansas as well as local schoolboard elections elsewhere became major battlegrounds for parental-rights warfare. Depending on one’s point of view, the parents’ agenda was cast either as an attempt to roll back diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts or as a drive to defeat a “woke” education agenda in favor of traditional values. Conservative schoolboard candidates in several major districts gained majorities in last fall’s elections with the support of parents’ rights groups such as Moms for Liberty, an organization based in Florida.

In many ways, the politics of parents’ rights can be viewed as an outgrowth of the hyper-partisan culture wars that are playing out in our national civic dialogue. However, it is also a reflection of a growing value-pluralism among parents, who differ widely in which narratives and experiences they want to see reflected in their children’s education.

State Legislative Response

State policymakers, apparently recognizing the power of the Great Unbundling, have responded with major changes in proposed school-choice legislation. Legislatures across the country have moved quickly away from “whole-school” choice legislation (charters, vouchers, and tax credits) and toward “unbundled” choice legislation in the form of the universal Education Savings Account, or ESA. While there are many state-to-state permutations in such legislation, an ESA is essentially an annual flexible-spending allocation for each eligible child based on a percentage of a state’s per-pupil expenditure—as high as 97.5 percent in states such as Florida, Arizona, and West Virginia. ESAs are a powerful tool for parents in unbundling and customizing their children’s schooling.

The growth in ESA programs has given more parents opportunities to unbundle their children’s education by providing them with the financial means to customize educational experiences based on their own values and perceived needs. The universal-access provisions of this funding stream mean that lower-income families now have access to the benefits of unbundling that were previously available only to affluent families.

The past year alone has seen a decisive shift in state legislatures away from vouchers, scholarships, and tax credits to pay for tuition at private schools and toward ESAs that allow parents to purchase discrete services from multiple education providers. The scorecard for the 2023 legislative session across states is striking (see Table 2).

Table 2: School Choice Bills Introduced in 2023

State ESA programs enacted over the past few years have dramatically expanded the number of students eligible to participate in the ESAs as compared to earlier versions. At first, ESAs were mostly targeted at narrow populations such as special needs students, children in failing schools, or those from lower-income families. More recently, ESA programs have increasingly expanded participation to all students, and the accounts are professionally managed, as Health Savings Accounts (HSA) are.

For example, West Virginia and Arizona passed universal ESA programs in 2022, while Iowa and Utah expanded eligibility to every child in 2023. In West Virginia, 93 percent of the state’s 295,000 public school students are eligible to participate. In contrast, New Hampshire’s program, adopted several years earlier, was keyed solely to families with incomes up to 300 percent above the poverty level, which means only 31 percent of children statewide are eligible.

Scott Jensen, former speaker of the Wisconsin State Assembly and now an executive at the American Federation for Children, has seen firsthand the legislative impact of parent demand for unbundled schooling. “For more than two decades, school choice advocates like me have had to work hard to explain the benefits of choice programs to parents,” Jensen said. “For the past two years, we have been running as fast as we can just to keep up with parents demanding a greater say over every aspect of their children’s education.”

As a result of the increased number of state programs and their universal participation guidelines, ESAs are undergoing explosive growth in student participation that is expected to mushroom further as more states join the ESA trend. The high participation rates in the “early adopter” states may well induce more states to create ESA programs, driving greater levels of participation in the unbundling movement in the coming years (see Figure 1).

FIgure 1: ESA Enrollment Growth

School District Response

The Great Unbundling’s volatile combination of parent desperation and parental-rights politics has sent a shockwave radiating across the school district landscape, challenging many core tenets of the traditional K–12 school model. As unbundling gains energy and influence, we believe that it has the potential to drive schools and districts to deliver much more individualized structuring of the schooling experience, reflecting greater degrees of flexibility and personalization.

The unbundling premise holds intuitive appeal, since each family can customize their child’s education, choosing from an array of program providers. That degree of flexibility holds the prospect of improving publicly funded education while also addressing preferences based on values, needs, and interests. If parents could opt out of some programs offered by their public school in favor of programs provided elsewhere, the competition over supplying the most effective robotics or language or math course could raise quality, elevate best practices, drive innovation, and stretch the boundaries of the school day.

Imagine local public schools offering à la carte services to students in private schools, charter schools, and homeschools, allowing them to play on athletic teams, participate in extracurriculars and the arts, take AP classes, and partake of other academic offerings and afterschool programs. Every school might not be great in everything, but each school would need to be good in something to attract a market niche and survive. Time-pressed parents would need unbundling to be convenient, easy, and accessible; we don’t believe this can happen equitably for all students and their families without the participation of public schools.

Unfortunately, the dominant response to date from most school-district leaders and institutional stakeholders—including the National School Boards Association and the American Association of School Superintendents—has largely been to push back on unbundling and the parents’ rights movement, discrediting them on moral or policy grounds while offering training to school leaders on the proactive management of controversies.

District leaders point to the annual PDK Poll of the Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools, which continues to suggest that most parents are quite happy with their child’s local public school. These leaders say that the finding casts the ESA-enabled unbundling trend, despite its growth, as a niche phenomenon. They also point out that the expertise and resources of district-operated schools far exceed the capacity of the market of nonpublic providers in many critical areas, such as special education and teaching English as a second language (ESL)—programs that generally require significant resources.

As schools and districts face increasing parent demands for customized schooling models, they will be called on to serve as both enablers and gatekeepers of the unbundling phenomenon in their local communities. It remains to be seen if their operations will have the agility, robustness, and competitiveness needed to participate in unbundling; however, we know that districts do respond to funding requirements, enrollment decline, and changes in state policy.

Reconciling Choice and Equity

The traditional American “common school model” has been central to the structure of our K–12 school systems since the 19th century. From a 2023 policy perspective, a fundamental question is whether (and how) this well-established model can adapt to an unbundling phenomenon driven by the intensification of value pluralism.

Should we consider unbundling as simply a more atomized version of school choice, one that allows parents to choose discrete programs for their children, rather than a single-school option, based on their personal values and perceived needs? That is, is it a natural extension of the charter school and voucher movements of the past 30 years? Or should we consider the Great Unbundling as a fraying of the common school model that has been a pillar of the American education system for more 150 years? Does the à la carte nature of unbundling move us away from a collective national character in favor of individual liberty? Does any public-policy avenue exist to accommodate both and avoid a disruptive fight for control of public education?

Generation after generation, the American K–12 common school model, while imperfect, has shown itself to be remarkably resilient and adaptable in the face of dramatic cultural and societal changes. Racial integration came about in response to Brown v. Board of Education, girls’ opportunities expanded because of Title IX, ESL programming was developed in response to immigration, special education services were ramped up in response to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. All of these and more have driven school districts to change and adapt their operations (albeit insufficiently in many cases).

Since 1974, when historian David Tyack chronicled “the one best system” in his book of the same name, the common school model has made significant adaptations to larger policy changes: the standards movement of the 1990s, with every state adopting common standards and assessments; the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, requiring disaggregated student-performance data by subgroups, including racial and ethnic; the equity movement of the 2000s, driving an evolution from equality of opportunity toward equity of outcomes. However, while these policy initiatives were based on changes in function, the unbundling of education will require changes in the form of public education.

In theory, equitable academic achievement for all students can be fostered in an education system that accommodates differing family preferences and beliefs in a pluralistic society; state-adopted standards can be taught through multiple content and different venues. The Great Unbundling will demand adaptation of the common school model and our methods of funding it. But we believe that the unbundling of education services by public schools may offer the best hope for accommodating pluralism while simultaneously advancing the achievement of all students.

Policy Prescription

If the Great Unbundling is to succeed—that is, become a positive force rather than a divisive alternative or fad—the active participation of public education leaders at both the state and district levels is essential. Implementing broad-scale unbundling while also achieving equity needs the cooperation of the largest, most dominant segment of the schooling market: district-operated public schools.

As former urban school-district superintendents, we believe that choice and competition among schools in a robust education marketplace motivates everyone to improve. Both of us have succeeded in using market-based tools to help students close achievement gaps, so we know firsthand that school districts do have the ability to harness solutions that rely on both equity and choice to improve public education. While ESAs are a robust public-policy mechanism for the next generation of educational choice, an equitable, inclusive version of education customized by parents is only possible, in our view, through a menu of choices that include the programs, courses, and learning experiences offered by district-operated schools.

While logistical constraints abound, there are several policy tools readily available to state and district leaders to support the educational promise of the Great Unbundling. We offer the following policy prescription for education policy leaders who seek to embrace the energy and opportunities of unbundling while also staying committed to the principles of educational equity and academic achievement for all students.

State Policies

Protect participation of high-needs students. State ESA policies should be expanded to ensure families have access to the funding sources generated by their students’ participation in the ESA. Eligible funding sources should include those that are required by law and funded categorically through state and federal grants—special education, compensatory education mandated by Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, services to English language learners, and the National School Lunch Program. The inclusion of these sources in the ESA funds made available to an individual family would eliminate the need to provide special “scholarships” or to “weight” ESA allotments by need. Access to these aggregated resources would enable the most underserved families to customize and improve other aspects of their child’s education.

Embrace partial enrollment. State school-finance formulas should be modified to include partial enrollment in public schools. Enrollment in school districts to access state funding should be cumulative, a sum of full-time and part-time enrollment in each school, like the current enrollment reporting of full-time students. This would enable students to participate in some classes or programs at their local public school and take advantage of offerings from private providers.

Control the quality of providers. States should create organizational mechanisms for ensuring the quality of service providers and enforcing performance standards. State approval of both nonprofit and for-profit education service providers would allow for some quality control over the marketplace. The active monitoring and accreditation of education service providers would enable states to create clearinghouses of approved vendors for families.

Modify state attendance laws to promote mastery, not seat time. The personalization inherent in unbundling requires flexibility of time and variation in individual student learning rates. Time and instruction must vary if mastery of standards is the constant; prescribed hours of classroom instruction, summer school, and afterschool tutoring may be necessary for some students to master the content in a given course. States should develop end-of-course exams and allow flexibility in how long individual students are given to master such courses, whenever and wherever they take them.

District Policies

Redefine enrollment, attendance, and participation. Districts need to adjust their operations to accommodate part-time attendance and program participation. Courses, programs, services, and other activities should be capitated, with tuition charges payable through the ESA by the parent holding the ESA grant. A truly universal ESA grant would award each student the amount needed to attend a public school full time. Students who opt for public school could seek an alternative to a course the district is offering or look for additional courses.

Determine the cost of all district offerings on a per-pupil basis. A school district will need to calculate a per-pupil cost for its courses, programs, and activities, based on the direct costs for personnel, materials, and related overhead. Conceptually, the sum of these costs should equal the annual per-pupil funding a family would receive through their ESA. Course and credit-hour tuition charges, which are widely used in colleges and other forms of post-secondary education, provide a model for capitation of individual courses and programs.

Use unbundling to increase market share and improve quality. According to parents’ responses to the 2022 Education Next survey of public opinion, enrollment in schools operated by public school districts declined by nearly two million students (or 4 percent) between 2020  and 2022. Unbundling offers school districts the opportunity to offset this enrollment loss by marketing discrete courses and programs to parents of homeschooled students and private-school parents as well as parents who become eligible for state-funded ESAs. Outreach to ESA families through regional enrollment service centers could expand the choice marketplace and provide public schools with more inclusive participation, enabling them to serve more students and broaden their base of support.

Unbundle the role of educators to help sustain them in teaching. The post-pandemic role of teachers and school administrators has become unmanageable, with teachers leaving the profession and school districts struggling to fill vacancies with high-quality candidates. Unbundling would allow schools to unpack the myriad tasks that are now bundled together and reassemble them in partnership with other providers in areas such as attendance, remediation, enrichment, mental health services, counseling, technology, and security. Unbundling programs and services would liberate teachers to focus their energies on their core role of instruction.

Future of Unbundling

The Great Unbundling creates enormous challenges and opportunities for K–12 school systems. While the policy debates of the past 30 years have focused on allowing families to choose from among schools, unbundling transcends this whole-school definition of choice to enable parents to atomize and customize the education of their children. Moving from a one-size-fits-all school model to a customized one has the potential to foster greater achievement and equity.

We expect that broad-based change toward an unbundled form of public education will be slow and incremental, with many policy kinks to work out. We anticipate administrative resistance and pushback from teachers unions as well as doctrinaire opposition from the institutional establishment to weakening the common school model. In short, unbundling will attract political opposition from all the groups typically in support of “the one best system” of batch learning and against market-driven choice and parental control.

Nevertheless, we believe that unbundling school choice would provide better benefits to all students over the long term, giving parents greater freedom than they have with whole-school choice alone. A system that allows families to opt in and out of specific school programs may prove to be less divisive than one in which stakeholders continually vie for political and policy control. The unbundling of K–12 education would also enable public schools—district-operated and charter—to serve more members of their community and be more inclusive across racial, ethnic, gender, income, and partisan lines.

At this point, no one knows how much demand there will be for unbundling, or if most parents will use their ESAs as they would a voucher—that is, to send their children to private school. In our view, this would be a missed opportunity. In a society that has become more diverse and pluralistic, a new generation of school choice is needed—one that moves beyond simple whole-school models of choice toward a robust system of unbundled education programs. Imagine a school system in which all parents—not just some—had the right to choose from among an array of services that meet their child’s interests and needs, consistent with their family’s values and circumstances.

Joseph Olchefske is an adjunct professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Education and the former superintendent of Seattle Public Schools. Steven Adamowski is an instructor in the University of Connecticut’s Executive Leadership Program and the former superintendent of the Cincinnati and Hartford school systems.

The post The Great Unbundling appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49716752
Building Diverse College Campuses Starts in Kindergarten https://www.educationnext.org/building-diverse-college-campuses-starts-in-kindergarten/ Wed, 05 Jul 2023 13:03:10 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49716735 In the wake of the Students for Fair Admissions, an urgent call to take on the “excellence gap”

The post Building Diverse College Campuses Starts in Kindergarten appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
U.S. Supreme Court
United States Supreme Court

Immediately following the announcement of the Supreme Court’s decision outlawing the use of race in college admissions (see “High Court Decision in College Admissions Case Has K-12 Implications”), the Biden Administration released a U.S. Department of Education plan to “promote educational opportunity and diversity in colleges and universities.” It includes forthcoming guidance to higher education institutions on how to use still-lawful practices to promote diversity, particularly new “measures of adversity” that consider what applicants may have had to overcome. The department also will consider expanding data collections and transparency around admissions factors and convene an “educational opportunity” summit to bring colleges and universities together with students, advocates, and researchers to discuss a way forward.

That’s all well and good, but it’s worth noting what was left off the department’s laundry list: anything having to do with k-12 education. That’s a huge missed opportunity and one that the administration should urgently work to address. One of the most effective ways to boost college diversity is by building broader, more inclusive paths to educational excellence. And that work starts in kindergarten.

Imagine if, instead of or in addition to looking at adversity and other proxies for race, our nation dedicated itself to creating a more diverse pipeline of high-school graduates with the ability to do advanced-level work. Imagine a world where college admissions offices didn’t rely on loopholes and complicated backdoor policies to create diverse student populations. Imagine that the top high-school students in the United States were already racially and socioeconomically representative of our great nation—without the need for affirmative action of any kind.

A Stubborn Gap in “Excellence”

Sadly, we are a long way from that today. On virtually any measure, there’s an “excellence gap” among students coming out of 12th grade. Students reaching the highest levels of performance—whether measured by test scores, grade-point average, or the number of Advanced Placement courses—are more likely to be Asian or white than Latino or Black. This excellence gap means that white and Asian teenagers are disproportionately represented among the top 10 percent of U.S. students, while Latino and Black students are significantly underrepresented.

Closing this gap will not be easy. It is related to a complex mix of social and historical conditions, including the impact of centuries of systemic racism, sharp socioeconomic divides between racial groups, and big differences in school experiences, family structures, and parenting practices. But frankly, as a nation, we’ve never really given it the “old college try.” If we focused on what schools can do to recognize and nurture excellence in all students, instead of just trying to work around the gaps at the end of their high-school careers, we could make significant progress toward the inclusive college campuses we all want to see.

That’s the message from an important new report from the National Working Group on Advanced Education, an ideologically and racially diverse set of scholars, policymakers, and practitioners convened by the think tank that I lead. Its most important message: Rather than wait until kids are leaving high school to try to even the playing field, we must start in kindergarten to identify the most academically talented students of all races and backgrounds and give them the support they need to excel.

The working group makes three dozen recommendations for states, schools, districts, and charter networks, with specific opportunity-building actions that start in the earliest grades and continue through high school. It is a clear roadmap for building this wider, more diverse pipeline of advanced students.

The first step is called “frontloading,” a type of enrichment provided to young children before they are old enough to be assessed for advanced learning opportunities like gifted and talented programs. Because poor children tend to come to school with limited vocabulary and less knowledge about the world compared to their more affluent peers, they typically earn lower scores on most traditional academic assessments—even if they have the intellectual horsepower to take on rigorous academic work. High-quality enrichment programs can help young students build knowledge and vocabulary to improve their reading skills and get them on the path to success.

The next step is to use “universal screening” to find every single child who could benefit from enrichment, acceleration, and other advanced learning opportunities. Schools and districts can use valid and reliable assessments—such as IQ tests, diagnostic exams, or state achievement tests—to identify all kids with the potential to do advanced-level work. That’s a big change from how many school districts do things today, which is to ask parents or teachers to nominate children for their gifted programs (or later, Advanced Placement courses). It’s not hard to see how that approach can bring with it racial and socioeconomic biases. Affluent, college-educated parents tend to be more aware of these programs and know how to advocate for their kids. And classroom teachers, however fair-minded, might overlook some talented students because they don’t fit a stereotype of a high achiever.

Opportunity Starts in Elementary School

Once students are identified as highly capable, they need the programs and opportunities that can help them realize their potential. School-based programs that do this can take many forms, but most share several key features: They allow students to study and engage with academic materials more broadly and deeply than the typical class, including doing above-grade-level work. They allow students to skip an entire grade if that’s what a child needs and can handle. And once students get to middle and high school, they automatically are enrolled in honors and Advanced Placement classes. In other words, no more gatekeeping that tends to dissuade kids on the bubble from giving these tougher classes a shot.

Doing this work and doing it well will take leadership and commitment from district and charter network leaders. Educators will have to view greater equity in education as crucial—and not just for their lowest-achieving students, but also for their highest-achieving ones. They will have to reexamine how a student’s potential is measured, and when. And they will have to focus on supporting more students to excel, including by looking closely at how students are identified to participate in advanced coursework and enrichment programs. The absolute worst thing schools could do is to eliminate advanced learning opportunities, like gifted and talented programs or honors classes, which have disproportionate white and Asian enrollments that mirror the “excellence gap.” True equity demands that we mend, rather than end, such programs—and extend these opportunities to many more kids.

Universities might object that there’s not much they can do about k–12 educational practices. But that’s simply not true. Institutions of higher education can make sure that their schools of education prepare future teachers and school leaders to recognize and serve every student who can do advanced-level work, especially students from low-income families. And universities can lend their expertise and money to local school districts and charter networks that need assistance in putting these kinds of initiatives in place.

The Biden Administration should widen its action plan to include the k-12 system. Starting in kindergarten isn’t the fastest way to college diversity, but it is probably the sturdiest.

Michael J. Petrilli is president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and an executive editor of Education Next.

The post Building Diverse College Campuses Starts in Kindergarten appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49716735
Does Abbott Elementary Get Teaching in an Inner-City Public School Right? https://www.educationnext.org/does-abbott-elementary-get-teaching-in-an-inner-city-public-school-right/ Tue, 27 Jun 2023 09:00:04 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49716721 Entertainment, not elucidation

The post Does <em>Abbott Elementary</em> Get Teaching in an Inner-City Public School Right? appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
Quinta Brunson is the creator, writer, and star of the ABC comedy Abbott Elementary, set in a fictitious public school in Philadelphia.
Quinta Brunson is the creator, writer, and star of the ABC comedy Abbott Elementary, set in a fictitious public school in Philadelphia.

Folks in education policy and practice often obsess over whether pop-culture depictions of school life are accurate. But they aren’t, even when they try to be. How plausible is it, for example, that “Prez,” the hot-headed and impulsive rookie cop in HBO’s gritty drama The Wire, accidentally kills a fellow police officer during a botched undercover operation yet somehow still gets hired and finds redemption as a compassionate and dedicated Baltimore public school teacher?

Worse, when the favorite reforms and policy plays of education reformers are skewered by the entertainment-industrial complex, we react as though the takedown carries the weight of an executive order. When John Oliver did an anti-charter school exposé on HBO’s Last Week Tonight, it was as if he were not a comedian but the reincarnation of Edward R. Murrow himself, who famously denounced Joe McCarthy on See It Now. When I asked one high-profile ed reformer why she was treating a comedy show as an existential threat to her work, she sternly replied, “This is where people get their news!” Well, then, people are fools.

This brings us to the latest pop culture artifact to inspire sturm und drang over the policy ramifications of its setting, characters, story arc, and political point of view. Abbott Elementary is a television sitcom created by Quinta Brunson, who also plays the lead as teacher Janine Teagues. The show, which premiered on ABC in December 2021, revolves around the daily lives of the teachers and staff of a fictitious public school in Philadelphia. It has been widely praised for its witty portrayal of life in an urban school, attracted millions of viewers, and won three Emmy awards.

The show is set in Abbott Elementary School, located in a working-class neighborhood of Philadelphia and beset by the standard litany of features associated in the public imagination with struggling inner-city schools: lack of funding, outdated equipment, and a staff that is overworked and underpaid. Despite these obstacles, the teachers and staff are (naturally) dedicated to making a difference in the lives of their students.

Brunson herself is aware of the limitations of her creation and seems almost embarrassed by the attention it’s received among educators. “I know it sounds bad, but a lot of people are like, ‘Wow, you did this thing to show how under-appreciated teachers are, to change the world,’” she said at a TV industry panel discussion last year. “Not really. I really just wanted to make a good workplace comedy.”

So, does Abbott Elementary get the details right?

No, of course not! Am I mumbling? It’s not an ethnography of an inner-city school; it’s a network sitcom, for Pete’s sake! Are you serious?! When the script requires teachers to talk to one another, which they do constantly, they don’t think twice about leaving their classrooms unattended. For all their complaining about never having time to prepare lessons, they spend an awful lot of time hanging out in the faculty lounge and chatting in the hallway. The main characters teach a range of grade levels, from kindergarten to the upper grades, yet somehow, they all seem to have the same lunch period. On staff development days, the room is filled with extras, suggesting the school has a large faculty. Yet when a charter school peels away some 3rd-grade students, Abbott’s 2nd grade teacher is forced to teach both grades in a single classroom. Children are little more than set dressing on Abbott Elementary and they only rarely speak (yeah, right). In my Bronx 5th grade classroom, I had students as old as 12 and 13, but some of the upper-grade Abbott kids look old enough to drive.

Brunson (center), with Abbott costars Tyler James Williams, Janelle James, Sheryl Lee Ralph, Lisa Ann Walter, and Chris Perfetti, aim for an entertaining workplace comedy.
Brunson (center), with Abbott costars Tyler James Williams, Janelle James, Sheryl Lee Ralph, Lisa Ann Walter, and Chris Perfetti, aim for an entertaining workplace comedy.

The show’s idea of a “disruptive student” is a child who calls out off-topic references to a TV show in class while his classmates are sitting in rapt attention to the teacher’s science lesson (on TV, teachers are still the “sage on the stage,” not the “guide on the side”). It’s the kind of mild misbehavior that calls for “planned ignoring” at best and likely wouldn’t even merit a teacher’s attention in an actual classroom, let alone become fodder for a storyline. The child is sent to the office of the principal, a vain, self-absorbed, and ineffective figure who commands little respect from her staff. When she sends the child back to class with a toy, the rest of the class erupts. That’s his punishment? Now they, too, want to be sent to the principal’s office.

OK, so that part is realistic. Nailed it.

A major plotline in the second season of Abbott Elementary involves a charter school that opens nearby. Naturally, this sent the commentariat into overdrive for an inevitable round of plumbing light entertainment for important political messages. The New Yorker devoted several pages in a March issue to a discussion of how Brunson’s “superb sitcom became an unabashed polemic against the privatization of a public good.”

Must we? Really? Very well, if we are going to take our public-policy cues from a network sitcom and fact-check the script, let the record show that charter schools are public schools, not private; they do not hand-pick high-performing kids, nor can they kick them out for struggling academically. The Abbott crew mistakenly receives a box of textbooks meant for Addington, the gleaming new charter down the block run by Legendary Charter Schools. When they deliver the books to snoop on the upstart school, they run into a former Abbott teacher who was let go for kicking a student. “I don’t do that anymore. Anger management,” the charter-school teacher chirps brightly, then adds in a conspiratorial stage whisper, “At a charter school there’s a lot less oversight in the hiring process. So, it’s been pretty sweet.”

Abbott Elementary does drop the occasional hint that traditional public education, too, is something less than an unalloyed civic good. When Brunson’s earnest and adorable main character, Janine, wants to paint her classroom to match the look and feel of Addington, the principal stops her because that would run afoul of the rules laid down by “the Philadelphia Department of Education, Animal Shelters, and Traffic.” A veteran teacher tells a young colleague to take down a schedule he created to ensure the school’s new curriculum gets taught. “Being a teacher is being asked to do the impossible, year after year,” she tells him, “and our only solution is to show up every day and try our best.” It’s meant to be maternal advice, but it could just as easily land as low expectations. On Reddit, real-life teachers have expressed disapproval at the sins the show commits against the science of reading: the three-cueing method of instruction debunked in Emily Hanford’s Sold a Story podcast lives on at Abbott Elementary.

The most unrealistic touch of all is Abbott itself. If neighborhood public schools were filled with the funny, likable, and dedicated teachers of Abbott Elementary, there would be no charter schools. Addington is filled with new books, French classes, a new computer lab, and more—in contrast to Abbott, which (you know how this sentence is going to end) is “underfunded,” not badly managed. Still, if charter advocates are looking for retribution for the sins committed against their sector by Abbott Elementary, they can start and finish with the Philadelphia public school system, where only a third of students in grades 3 to 8 met reading standards in the 2021–22 school year. And that was robust compared to math, where just 17 percent were up to snuff. According to data released in May by the district, three out of four Philly schools met between zero and 33 percent of their academic targets for the school year, which is no laughing matter.

Abbott Elementary plays to the conventional notions of those outside the edusphere and mines for laughs many of the standard myths and homilies of teaching. The city predicts the prison population based on reading performance. Barbara, a wise veteran, tells her young and earnest colleagues, “Your students can either fear you or respect you.” Sending a kid to the principal’s office makes a young white teacher, an awkward and clueless newbie whom savvy viewers will recognize as a Teach For America tintype, feel like “the mayor of White Guiltsylvania.”

But don’t blame the lack of sophistication on Brunson and company. They’re actors, writers, and comedians, not ed policy people. They’ve created a slight but amusing enough workplace comedy whose major faults lie not in its portrayal of an urban elementary school, but in the irritating tics TV viewers have come to associate with other workplace comedies, such as The Office, on which it’s modeled: the “mockumentary” style of rapid shifts and zooms, and characters breaking the fourth wall and shooting knowing glances at the camera to land weak jokes that even the writers seem to know merit more smirks than belly laughs.

As a kid, I watched an ungodly amount of television. Columbo and The Streets of San Francisco made detective work look fascinating. And every Saturday night, Emergency! made working as a paramedic seem like one exciting adventure after the next. Welcome Back, Kotter, though, didn’t make me want to be a teacher. The “Sweathogs” in that sitcom’s remedial ed classroom reminded me a little too much of the tough kids who mocked and intimidated me in metal shop. The point is, a lot of us form our ideas about various occupations from television shows—and most of these impressions are far from realistic.

But television is meant for entertainment, not elucidation. And know—as always—that when those of us in the education arena argue over whether a TV show is true-to-life or not, accurate or mythologizing, it’s a telltale sign of motivated reasoning: “Abbott Elementary reminds me so much of the teachers I know!” (Read: pay us more). “That’s not what it’s like at all!” (Read: open more charter schools). It’s just a television show. If every district-run school in Philadelphia were like Abbott Elementary, you wouldn’t put your kid in a charter. Or teach in one.

Robert Pondiscio is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of How the Other Half Learns (Avery, 2019).

The post Does <em>Abbott Elementary</em> Get Teaching in an Inner-City Public School Right? appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49716721
Settle for Better https://www.educationnext.org/settle-for-better-how-overpromising-undercut-education-reform-movement/ Tue, 20 Jun 2023 09:00:43 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49716719 How overpromising undercut the education reform movement, and what to do about it

The post Settle for Better appeared first on Education Next.

]]>

IllustrationWhen I first got involved in education reform back in 1993, a quote attributed to the famed anthropologist Margaret Mead had become a mantra at gatherings of those of us in “the movement”: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”

Everyone in the room would nod their heads in agreement and breathe in the heady inspiration that comes from being with like-minded people who share a belief in the righteousness of their cause and the inevitability of their success. For us “happy few” crusaders, history and justice were on our side.

Thirty years later, and after spending the last eight years in state bureaucracy as the Massachusetts secretary of education, I still believe in the ideas and aspirations behind the reform efforts of the 1990s and 2000s, but it’s now clear that our ambitions were exaggerated, and our timeline was way off—most memorably the promise that No Child Left Behind would get 100 percent of students to proficiency in English and math by 2014.

This is not a rationale for abandoning the cause; quite the opposite. It’s the foundation for rededicating ourselves to the hard work that needs to be done one day at a time, by shifting our mindset from the visionary call to “change the world,” to a more pragmatic directive to “do your job” (as New England’s own Coach Bill Belichick might say).

Education reform that had its beginnings in the 1980s and came into full bloom in the 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century had four basic components:

• Standards, assessment, and accountability, to set and raise expectations, along with measurement of school and student performance, to create a culture of data-driven decisionmaking and timely action to address systemic weaknesses

• Innovation in school models and instructional tools and systems, often tech-enabled, to shift the learning process from mass production to mass customization

• Robust teacher recruitment and practice-based training, to attract the best and the brightest and give them the skills they need to be highly effective, as measured by effects on student achievement

• Autonomous schools and parental choice, to provide front-line educators with real decisionmaking authority and to empower parents to vote with their feet when their children were stuck in low-performing neighborhood schools

What knit these elements together was a belief that applying the lessons of modern management and competitive markets from both the for-profit and nonprofit sectors would yield significant improvement to K–12 education, specifically as measured by student achievement and other academic or career outcomes. More compelling was the commitment to employ these strategies to eliminate the persistent performance gaps between schools serving high-poverty communities of color and schools serving well-to-do, mostly white suburbs.

In the words of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, this remarkably bipartisan effort to raise student achievement and close gaps represented “the civil rights issue of our time.”

For a variety of reasons, the education-reform zeitgeist has shifted. Indeed, “education reform” is now considered to be a loaded term that is no longer spoken in polite company without risking a heated argument or losing the friendship of former allies. Although the Trump presidency accelerated the break-up, the coalition had begun to fray years before.

Loss of Consensus

The biggest sea change occurred with the loss of consensus that raising the level of academic achievement in historically underserved communities is essential to the pursuit of greater social equity. This is not just a matter of toning down the rhetoric around college-for-all to make room for career readiness; it’s also a reflection of a breakdown in the shared understanding of what educational excellence means and the purpose of schools in the first place.

Photo of Albert Shanker
Albert Shanker

The late Albert Shanker, legendary president of the American Federation of Teachers, once said, “The key is that unless there is accountability, we will never get the right system. As long as there are no consequences if kids or adults don’t perform, as long as the discussion is not about education and student outcomes, then we’re playing a game as to who has the power.”

At the August 2022 meeting of the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, here’s what Max Page, the current head of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, said in opposition to the state’s student-assessment system:

It [strikes] me that we have a fundamental difference of views of what schools are for. The focus on income, on college and career readiness, speaks to a system that . . . is tied to the capitalist class and its needs for profit. We on the other hand have as a core belief that the purpose of schools must be to nurture thinking, caring, active and committed adults, parents, community members, activists, citizens.

How did we get here?

The general social and political environment certainly had a lot to do with it, but I think those of us in the education reform community, including state policymakers, need to reassess our own contributions.

To motivate people and mobilize resources to take on a big challenge, you need to tell a compelling story—about both the problem you’re trying to solve and your vision for the future. In the terminology of the day, you need a “burning platform” and a “theory of change.” For at least two decades, the messaging used by reformers worked to power a genuine national movement for education reform.

The rub is that creating excitement about dramatic change can eventually lead to overpromising and under-delivering—and when the results don’t keep pace with expectations, disappointment and disillusionment ensue. What’s more, the narrative of “transformation,” uplifting to many, can have a demoralizing effect on the people and organizations that are doing their best to get results within the existing “dysfunctional” system.

President George W. Bush signs the No Child Left Behind Act into law on January 8, 2002, surrounded by students and lawmakers.
President George W. Bush signs the No Child Left Behind Act into law on January 8, 2002, surrounded by students and lawmakers. Like many education reforms of the time, NCLB fell short of its ambition to ensure proficiency for all students in English and math.

The Role of State Policy

Even under the best of circumstances, moving the needle on overall student achievement and closing gaps across communities and student subgroups at scale is a multi-generation task. It is certainly not something that can be achieved through policy reforms in one or two terms of a president or a governor.

Affecting student outcomes is only partially and indirectly a function of public policy. State policymakers, in particular, can help create the conditions within which improvement can occur by fairly and equitably allocating financial resources, establishing rigorous standards and aligned assessments, and providing meaningful and timely information to educators and local officials. Policy can also disrupt the status quo by authorizing the creation of new schools, allowing parental choice, and enabling state education agencies to intervene in the lowest-performing schools or districts.

The 1993 Massachusetts Education Reform Act established the commonwealth’s version of the national standards-based reform movement, which culminated in the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2002. As documented by Harvard economist Thomas Kane, the impact of these reforms in Massachusetts and across the United States is arguably among the most successful social-policy stories of the past 50 years, notwithstanding more recent stagnation or decline. Massachusetts significantly expanded its investment in K–12 education through a progressive funding formula and at the same time developed rigorous curriculum frameworks along with high-quality and well-aligned student assessments. It also established a school accountability system tied to performance-based outcomes and authorized some of the country’s earliest and best charter schools. Through these measures, the commonwealth was able to raise its overall level of school quality and student achievement, especially during the first two decades of reform.

Student performance on the mathematics portion of the National Assessment of Educational Progress provides a telling example. Between 1992, just before the Education Reform Act was passed, and 2011, Massachusetts saw an increase of more than 25 scaled-score points at both 4th and 8th grade, moving in the state rankings from ninth and twelfth place, respectively, to number one. Although progress on gap-closing has been mixed and inadequate, the scaled-score difference in mathematics on the NAEP between white and Black 4th graders in Massachusetts was reduced by one-third over the same period.

Getting the policies right is a challenge, and once they’re implemented, their effects take time to emerge. Lasting change requires sustaining those policies in the face of ongoing pressure to turn back the clock or to try something else.

Over the course of the last eight years, the state’s Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, largely appointed by Republican Governor Charlie Baker, took steps to update and reinforce many of these core elements of the 1993 reform by

• revising curriculum frameworks

• developing “next generation” student assessments for the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS)

• strengthening the accountability framework by broadening its performance metrics and sharpening its focus on improvement among the lowest-achieving students

• re-benchmarking and raising the “competency determination” for high school graduation based on MCAS

All of this took place in a political and legislative environment that has become at best ambivalent toward standards-based education reform, as the weaknesses that plagued the system prior to the Education Reform Act fade from memory and as student performance gains flatten or recede. Holding the line going forward will likely become an increasing challenge as Massachusetts state government transitions to full one-party (Democratic) rule.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Massachusetts Education Reform Act and similar laws in other states have played a crucial role in improving student outcomes, when all is said and done, the best policy environment only makes improvement possible; it doesn’t make it happen. That change can only occur at the ground level, in more than 100,000 schools and more than two million classrooms across the country.

So, if policy effects tend to diminish over time, what can state education officials do that might make a lasting difference?

Doing nothing is not an option, for at least two reasons. First, most state governments, including Massachusetts, have a constitutional obligation to ensure all students receive an adequate education. Municipalities operate schools as a delegated responsibility, so when things go wrong, the state is ultimately on the hook. Second, even though decentralization sounds like it would be fertile ground for innovation and continuous improvement, each school district in effect operates as a monopoly, typically at the toleration of its local teachers union. Throw in the outsized influence of graduate schools of education in teacher training and you have the “iron triangle” that holds public education in its grip. In this environment, only state government has the leverage to create space for real change.

In getting more directly involved in educational programs and practice, however, state policymakers need a heavy dose of humility. From a teacher’s point of view, the only thing worse than having someone from the central office telling you what to do is having someone from the state department of education telling you what to do.

Governor Baker’s dictum throughout his administration was “Do more of what works.” That approach, ideally backed up by solid evidence, not only provides the greatest promise for positive near-term student impact but also offers the path of least resistance when it comes to adoption and effective implementation by educators.

There are a variety of proven programmatic initiatives that state policymakers might pursue (although unfortunately it’s not a terribly long list). During the Baker administration, our priorities were:

Early literacy. In fall 2022, the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education adopted regulations requiring all children in grades K–3 to receive semi-annual literacy screening to determine whether they are on track toward reading proficiency. For students who are below benchmark, schools must inform parents and develop individual reading-improvement plans grounded in evidence-based instructional practices.

High school pathways. Starting in 2017, the Baker administration launched two parallel initiatives to establish early-college and early-career pathways, providing integrated courses of study for student cohorts in more than 100 high schools to deepen learning and engagement while strengthening college and career readiness. Both options are focused on improving outcomes for students who are underrepresented in higher education or high-demand industries.

Vocational and technical education. An interagency Workforce Skills Cabinet committed more than $200 million to upgrade equipment and technical lab spaces in vocational schools, comprehensive high schools, community colleges, and nonprofit training centers. In addition to creating new “reskilling and upskilling” capacity for workers and adult learners, these investments also enabled vocational enrollment to grow by close to 8,000 students (about 15 percent) since 2015, even though overall high school enrollment was flat.

Educator diversity. A central focus of the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education is the recruitment, support, and retention of teachers of color. With the support of targeted grant programs and state-local partnerships, the number of Black and Latino teachers has increased by more than 30 percent since 2015, even as the total number of teachers has remained constant.

Unlike the earlier generation of policy reforms, these programmatic initiatives are not perceived as threatening to local autonomy and are generally met with enthusiasm by educators, students, and parents—as well as legislators on both sides of the aisle. Strategies like high-dosage tutoring, vacation and summer learning opportunities, and incentives for adoption of evidence-based curriculum and professional development could probably be added to this list. Equally important is the identification of other initiatives that could make an impact. Federal and state education agencies should partner with researchers to independently and rigorously evaluate promising programs and interventions.

Photo of Charlie Baker speaking into a microphone
The administration of Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker attempted to reinforce the state’s standards-based 1993 Education Reform Act with stronger accountability.

Hope and Pragmatism

Execution, of course, is always the challenge, especially on a large scale, but these strategies offer hope for meaningful change at the classroom level, promising to move us closer to universal reading proficiency by 4th grade, create more equitable and inclusive classrooms, and provide a more engaging and purposeful high school experience.

If efforts like these prove successful and continue to gather momentum—especially across two gubernatorial administrations representing both major political parties—there is hope that they can be sustained over time to achieve statewide scale.

This is not an argument for abandoning other approaches to reform that operate closer to the margins of the dominant system, including charter schools, parental choice, and tech-enabled innovation. Any long-term school improvement plan, if it is to succeed, must include a robust outside strategy that can work collaboratively and competitively with school districts—challenging and enabling them to accelerate change and providing alternatives when they don’t. State policymakers must ensure that education entrepreneurs are supported and encouraged to play an ever-larger role in the public education ecosystem, especially for communities and student populations that have long been underserved or ignored.

By regaining traction on overall student performance and making progress on stubborn inequities, the programmatic initiatives described above, and others like them, might also help reinforce the value of the underlying standards-based reform architecture, helping to demonstrate its relevance, three decades after being enshrined in statute.

Perhaps just as important, renewed educational progress might help refocus politicians, media, and the broader public on the day-to-day work of schools, which has been overshadowed lately by the din of the culture wars. There is no way for schools to be fully insulated from these increasingly vitriolic and often hyperbolic ideological clashes; after all, schools play a central role in raising our children. But what gives these issues oxygen at school board meetings, state houses, and on social media is the growing sense on both the right and the left that schools are part of the problem and therefore not to be trusted.

From the left, schools are charged with being the perpetrator of the school-to-prison pipeline. From the right, schools are seen as a training ground for social justice warriors. Unfortunately, the “silent majority” in the middle mostly sits on the sidelines, in part out of fear of being ostracized by their angry neighbors and in part because many of them have lost confidence in the ability of our school system to deliver on its core educational mission—a perspective that was exacerbated by remote learning during the pandemic.

Over the past 30 years or more, education reformers have tried to “fix” a “broken” system of public schools. Although real progress has been made, the work is not even close to being done. By making the bold promise to “leave no child behind,” we helped to turn what should have been a positive story into a narrative of failure. Without a new, more pragmatic plan to achieve meaningful and sustainable improvement that both students and parents can recognize in their own schools, we risk losing the gains that we’ve made.

James A. Peyser served as secretary of education for Massachusetts from 2015–2022 and as chairman of the state board of education from 1999–2006.

The post Settle for Better appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49716719
No School Stands Alone https://www.educationnext.org/no-school-stands-alone-how-market-dynamics-affect-performance-public-private-schools/ Tue, 06 Jun 2023 09:00:37 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49716581 How market dynamics affect the performance of public and private schools

The post No School Stands Alone appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
Schoolchildren at a private school in Punjab Province listen to a lesson.
Schoolchildren at a private school in Punjab Province listen to a lesson.

In the United States, 9 percent of K–12 students attend private schools, but in low- and middle-income countries, private schools account for 20 percent of all primary enrollment and are rapidly gaining ground. In Pakistan, the number of private schools rose to more than 70,000 by 2015, up from 3,000 in 1982; by 2015, these schools educated 34 percent of Pakistani children enrolled in primary schools. In contrast to private schools in the United States, Pakistan’s are highly affordable, and the majority are secular.

This growth in private schooling comes at a unique moment in global education: low-income countries have managed to substantially increase enrollments at all levels of schooling, but they have yet to improve what children learn. For instance, the unprecedented speed at which primary (and now secondary and college) enrollment has risen in low-income countries dwarfs the historical experience of today’s rich countries. Yet, in countries such as India and Pakistan, when children are tested at the end of 3rd grade, one-third of them cannot subtract two-digit numbers, less than a sixth can read a simple sentence in English, and less than half can read a simple sentence in the vernacular language, Urdu. Across low-income countries, test scores are so low that the situation has been dubbed a global learning crisis by organizations such as the World Bank and UNESCO.

The growth in private schools, coming at the same time as the shift in focus from enrollment to learning, has polarized the education community in low- and middle-income countries. Some people favor heavily regulating or even shutting down private schools, based on the belief that they provide substandard education to children of parents who are unable to assess the quality of schools; others believe that private schools should be encouraged and indeed subsidized through the public purse because they provide a valuable option in places with failing public schools. Missing from this debate is a detailed empirical picture of what the growth of private schools means for education markets more broadly. How does the rise in private schooling affect demand for schools in both the private and public sectors, and how do schools respond to any changing demand? Does more competition increase quality? Should governments maintain their focus on improving the quality of public schools, alleviate constraints on private alternatives—or perhaps do both?

Figure 1: Public and Private Schools in a LEAPS Village

Learning from the LEAPS Project

Research from the Learning and Education Achievement in Pakistan Schools project, or LEAPS, sheds light on these questions and holds implications for public policy in Pakistan and around the globe. To understand how the growth of private schools was transforming the education landscape in low-income countries, in 2003 I teamed up with Tahir Andrabi of Pomona College and Asim Ijaz Khwaja of Harvard University to launch the LEAPS project, a study of all the schools in 112 villages in the province of Punjab. The province has more than 100,000 schools, of which 60,000 were private in 2015. (By comparison, the state of California, with the largest public-education system in the United States, has about 10,000 public schools.) The villages in the LEAPS project were selected from those that had at least one private school in 2003; these villages are larger and somewhat wealthier than the average village in Punjab, which in turn has the lowest poverty rate of all Pakistani provinces. At the time the project began, about 60 percent to 70 percent of the province’s rural population lived in villages with at least one private school. Between 2003 and 2011, the LEAPS team tracked more than 800 schools in these villages, interviewed more than 1,000 principals and 2,000 teachers, and tested more than 70,000 children to gauge their foundational skills in literacy and numeracy.

The high concentration of private and public schools in Punjab Province has transformed education markets there. Figure 1 shows a village in the LEAPS sample. It took me (and two young children) 15 minutes to traverse the village, yet it has five private and two public schools. Data gathered by the LEAPS team show that in 2003, the average fee for private schools in rural Punjab was equivalent to about $1.50 a month, or less than the price of a cup of tea every day. The number of schools in the village portrayed here is typical of the sample—in fact, the average LEAPS village in 2003 had 678 households and 8.2 schools, of which 3 were private.

The proliferation of private schools in Punjab has enabled such considerable school choice that, once we account for urban areas, some 90 percent of children in the province now live in neighborhoods and villages like the one illustrated in Figure 1. Such “schooling markets” are not just a Pakistani or South Asian phenomenon. Schooling environments in Latin America and parts of Sub-Saharan Africa also offer extensive variety for local families.

One question widely examined by education researchers is whether children in private schools learn more than those in public schools. Is there a private-school “premium” that can be measured in terms of test results or other metrics? One impediment to answering that question is that children enrolled in private schools are not randomly drawn from the local population, and researchers often cannot convincingly correct for this selection problem. In my view, though, a larger obstacle is that the concept of an “average” private-school premium is elusive when families can choose from multiple public and private schools and the quality of schools differs vastly within both sectors. Comparing a high-performing public school to a low-performing private school will yield a very different result than comparing a high-performing private school to a low-performing public school.

The LEAPS research team looked at this question in a study published in 2023. We defined school value-added as the gain in test scores in Urdu, math, and English that a randomly selected child would experience when enrolled in a specific school. The team found that the value-added variation among schools was so large that, compounded over the primary school years, the average difference between the best- and the worst-performing school in the same village was comparable to the difference in test scores between low- and high-income countries.

Figure 2 shows what this variation implies for estimates of private-school effectiveness. Each vertical line in the figure represents one of the 112 LEAPS villages. Schools in each village are arranged on the line according to their school value-added, with public schools indicated by red triangles and private schools by black dots. The red band tracks the average quality of public schools in the villages, from weakest to strongest, and the gray band shows the average quality of private schools in the villages. The private schools are, on average, more successful in raising test scores than their public-sector counterparts. As is clear, however, every village has private and public schools of varying quality, and the measure of any “private-school premium” depends entirely on which specific schools are being compared. In fact, the study shows that the causal impact of private schooling on annual test scores can range from –0.08 to +0.39 standard deviations. The low end of this range represents the average loss across all villages when children move from the best-performing public school to the worst-performing private school in the same village. The upper end represents the average gain across all villages when children move from the worst-performing public school to the best-performing private school, again within the same village.

Figure 2: Effectiveness of Public and Private Schools in LEAPS Villages as Measured by School Value-Added

Parents’ Choices

The relevant question, then, is not whether private schools are more effective. The questions are: How well are parents equipped to discern quality in a school—public or private—and choose the best one for their children? And can policy decisions affect these choices?

As to the first question, the team found that parents choosing private schools appear to recognize and reward high quality. Consequently, in the LEAPS villages, private schools with higher value-added are able to charge higher fees and see their market share increase over time. In contrast, parents choosing public schools either have a harder time gauging the school’s value-added or are less quality-sensitive in their choices. This is particularly concerning in the case of students enrolled in very poorly performing public schools where after five years of schooling they may not be able to read simple words or add two single-digit numbers.

Given that parents who opt for public schools appear to be less sensitive to quality, one reform instrument often supported by policymakers is the school voucher, whereby public money follows the child to the family’s school of choice. The idea is that making private schools “free” for families will allow children to leave poorly performing public schools in favor of higher-quality private schools. This strategy assumes that parents, when choosing among schools, place significant weight on the cost of the school, manifest in its fees. What’s more, one may reasonably expect that such “fee sensitivity” will be higher in low-income countries and among low-income families. Yet a 2022 analysis of the LEAPS villages showed that a 10 percent decline in private-school fees increased private-school enrollment by 2.7 percent for girls and 1 percent for boys. From these data we estimated that even a subsidy that made private schools totally free would  decrease public-school enrollment by only 12.7 and 5.3 percentage points for girls and boys, respectively. This implies that most of the subsidy, rather than going to children who are leaving public schools, would be captured by children who would have enrolled in private schools even without the tuition aid. Further, most of the children induced to change schools under the policy may come from high- rather than low-performing public schools, limiting any test-score gains one might expect.

One alternative to trying to move children out of poorly performing public schools is to focus on improving those schools. A LEAPS experiment that my co-authors and I published in 2023 evaluated a program that allocated grants to public schools in villages randomly chosen from the LEAPS sample. We found that, four years after the program started, test scores were 0.2 standard deviations higher in public schools in villages that received funds than in public schools in villages that did not. In addition, we observed an “education multiplier” effect: test scores were also 0.2 standard deviations higher in private schools located in grant-receiving villages. This effect echoes an economic phenomenon that often occurs in industry—that is, when low-quality firms improve, higher-quality firms tend to increase their quality even further to protect their market share. In the LEAPS villages, the private schools that improved were those that faced greater competition, either by being physically closer to a public school or by being located in a village where public schools were of relatively high quality at the start of the program. The same was true of private schools in villages where the grants to the public schools were larger.

The education multiplier effect increases the cost-effectiveness of the grant program by 85 percent, putting it among the top ranks of education interventions in low-income countries that have been subject to formal evaluation. But beyond that, accounting for private-school responses also changed the optimal targeting of the policy. For instance, our analysis shows that if policymakers consider test-score increases in public schools only, a policy that divides resources equally across villages also maximizes test-score gains; there is apparently no trade-off between equity and effectiveness. Once private-school responses are considered, however, equal division of resources exacerbates existing inequalities in learning among villages. This implies that a government that values equity should distribute more resources to villages with poorly performing public schools.

Implications for Policymaking

With 90 percent of Pakistani children living in neighborhoods with multiple public and private schools, the days when government could formulate policies that affected only public schools are long gone. The same is true of many other low-income countries where parents also have significant school choice, ranging from Chile to India. Every policy will have an impact on both public and private schools, even if a policy only targets public schools. Policymakers can choose to ignore these additional effects, but to do so is to miscalculate the policy’s full impact. Our studies are still too premature to help factor parental and private-school responses into the design of policy. A key insight from the LEAPS research is that there is significant variation among schools in terms of performance and among parents in terms of their preferences for quality. A policy to improve public schools can lead to an education multiplier effect in one context but cause private schools to exit in another. A broad understanding of the dynamics of education markets, such as parents placing a very heavy weight on physical distance to school in their choices, can shed some light on this variation. Yet the data requirements to make detailed predictions about how policies will play out in specific settings may be too onerous, at least for now.

How then to proceed? Three broad principles are emerging from the LEAPS project.

First, there is little evidence that parents choosing to send their children to private schools in low-income countries are being fooled or hoodwinked into receiving a substandard education. On the contrary, the parents choosing private schools seem to be more informed and better able to reward school quality. The bigger problem is the substantial population of children enrolled in very low-performing public schools, even when there are better public schools nearby. Unfortunately, policies that seek to move children from public to private schools by means of vouchers may end up spending a lot of money on children who were already going to private schools. What’s more, the test-score gains from such policies may be limited if most of the children who do switch from a public to a private school come from higher-performing public schools. Indeed, a 2022 study by Mauricio Romero and Abhijeet Singh showed that both of these dynamics play out in India’s Right to Education Act, which established one of the world’s largest voucher schemes. Subsidizing private schools in a way that consistently improves test scores by moving children out of low-performing public schools remains an elusive goal.

If we cannot move children out of low-performing public schools, the alternative is to improve those schools. The second principle, then, is that governments should maintain a focus on improving the quality of public schools. Results of the first generation of efforts to do so in low-income countries were mixed at best, but studies of newer reform efforts that emphasize improved pedagogy, incentives, teacher recruitment and training, and school grants are all showing positive results. A 2021 study by Alex Eble and colleagues, for instance, showed dramatic improvements in test scores in The Gambia with an intervention that used a variety of strategies: hiring teachers on temporary contracts, making changes in pedagogy, monitoring teachers, and giving them regular feedback. Again, the benefits of these policies may extend beyond the public schools they target. In schooling markets, the education multiplier effect will create positive knock-on effects for private schools.

Third, leaders should consider an entirely different class of policies. These are policies that do not privilege either the public or private sector but acknowledge that both parents and schools face constraints and that alleviating these constraints can lead to significant improvements in both sectors, regardless of the preferences of parents or the cost structures of schools.

Studies by the LEAPS team present two examples of such policies. In the first, the team provided parents and schools with information on the performance of all schools in a village—public and private—through school “report cards.” We found that this intervention improved test scores in both public and private schools and decreased private-school fees. The policy, in this case, pays for itself and has been recognized as a global “great buy” by a team of education experts.

As a second example, in 2020 the LEAPS team provided grants to private schools, but in some villages, we gave the grant money to a single school and in others to all private schools in the village. We found that in the first scenario, the school used the money to upgrade infrastructure and expand enrollment but with no resulting improvement in test scores. However, when all the private schools in a village received a grant, schools expanded enrollment and increased student test scores. These schools anticipated that simultaneous capacity improvements by all the private schools would lead to a price war, driving profits to zero, so they focused largely on test-score improvements to maintain profit margins. In both scenarios, the combination of boosted enrollment and higher fees increased the schools’ profits. These increases were large enough that, had the schools taken the money in the form of loans, they would have been able to repay them at interest rates of 20 to 25 percent or more. Finally, the schools improved even though the grant terms did not explicitly require them to—showing that the market generated the incentives for improvement without additional monitoring and testing by external parties, which in Pakistan has proven to be both costly and difficult.

These interventions leverage the fact that many children in Pakistan and around the globe now live in neighborhoods with multiple public and private schools. In these environments, progress relies on alleviating broader constraints in the education market rather than focusing on specific schools or school types. Moving beyond “public versus private,” we now need policies that support schooling markets, not schools—the entire ecosystem, not just one species.

Jishnu Das is a distinguished professor of public policy at the McCourt School of Public Policy and the Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and a Senior Visiting Fellow at the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi, India.

This article appeared in the Summer 2023 issue of Education Next. Suggested citation format:

Das, J. (2023). No School Stands Alone: How market dynamics affect the performance of public and private schools. Education Next, 23(3), 32-38.

The post No School Stands Alone appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49716581
Choice Reconsidered https://www.educationnext.org/choice-reconsidered-rethink-school-choice-avoid-either-or-thinking-great-school-rethink-excerpt/ Wed, 31 May 2023 09:00:59 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49716668 Rethink school choice to avoid either-or thinking and instead ask how expanding options might help meet the needs of students and families and empower educators.

The post Choice Reconsidered appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
A closeup of two hands weaving fabric on a loom
Educational choice has been woven into the fabric of American education from the nation’s earliest days.

Discussions of school choice frequently fall into familiar morality plays: Either you’re for empowering parents or supporting public education. The resulting debate manages to miss much of what matters. It ignores that all kinds of choices are hard-wired into American public education. It skips past the fact that the affluent already choose schools when purchasing homes, so the debate is really about the options available to everyone else.

Families want more options, but that fact doesn’t mean they dislike their local schools (much less, that they’re eager to flee them). In 2022, for instance, more than three-quarters of parents said that they were satisfied with their child’s experience in a public district school even as more than seven in ten endorsed education savings accounts, school vouchers, and charter schools. In short, parents overwhelmingly like both their child’s public school and school choice policies. They don’t see a tension here.

How can that be? How do we reconcile parent support for more choices with affection for their local public schools? It’s not hard, really. Parents want alternatives when it comes to scheduling, school safety, or instructional approach. They want to be able to protect their kids from bullies or from school practices they find troubling. At the same time, though, they also value schools as community anchors, they like their kid’s teachers, and they may live where they do precisely because they like the local schools.

Families can embrace options without wanting to abandon their local public schools. The notion that one is either for empowering parents or supporting public education is a misleading one. Real parents don’t think this way.

So, how does a Rethinker approach the school choice debate? It helps to start not with sweeping ideological claims but by asking how expanding options might work for students, meet the needs of families, and empower educators.

Choice Is Woven Into the Fabric of American Schooling

Amidst today’s partisan sniping, it can be easy to forget that educational choice has been woven into the fabric of American education from the nation’s earliest days. During the colonial era, it was presumed that most children would get only a rudimentary education and that only a tiny handful of affluent white families would choose to have their sons pursue more formal education (often to prepare for the ministry). Schools were routinely located in churches, and local church leaders were charged with choosing the schoolteacher. In that era, the notion that there was any tension between parental choice, the role of religion, and public provision would’ve been deemed an odd one!

In recent decades, as charter schools have grown to enroll more than 3 million students, the tapestry of options has grown to increasingly include scholarship (or voucher) programs, education savings accounts, microschools and learning pods, course choice options, hybrid homeschooling, and more.

Thinking More Expansively About Choice

Choice isn’t only an integral part of the American education landscape—it’s embedded in public schools themselves. From start to finish, schooling is a stew of choices made by parents, students, educators, system officials, and policymakers. Parents choose whether to send their children to pre-K, when to start kindergarten, or whether to opt their child out of sex education. Students choose groups and activities, which electives to take, and what book to read for a book report. Teachers choose where to apply for a job, which materials they use, and how to deliver instruction. District staff choose policies governing discipline, curricula, field trips, and attendance zones.

Outside of school, we take for granted that families will choose childcare providers, pediatricians, dentists, babysitters, and summer programs. Indeed, many such choices involve parents or guardians making decisions that are subsidized by government funds. And the choices they make will have big implications for a child’s health, well-being, upbringing, and education.

The same options that appeal to families can empower teachers and school leaders who feel stuck in unresponsive schools or systems. Educators, like parents, can value public education while wanting more opportunities to find or create learning environments where they’ll be free from entrenched rules, regulations, contract provisions, and customs.

The Lessons of Learning Pods

Book cover of The Great School RethinkLearning pods offer one intriguing way to rethink the boundary between schooling, tutoring, and study groups. A learning pod is a handful of students who study together, under the auspices of a tutor, outside of a traditional school setting (mostly to augment school-based instruction rather than replace it). Learning pods leapt into the public eye during the pandemic, as families caught up in remote learning sought to provide their kids an organized, intimate, and supportive environment.

Now, learning pods might be an artifact of Covid-19 and easy to see as a bit of a “that-was-then” time capsule. Fair enough. Even if that ultimately proves to be the case, though, there are some terrific takeaways here.

The tens of thousands of learning pods that emerged across the country were most commonly described as something akin to sustained, high-intensity tutoring. Kids got customized attention in a comfortable, face-to-face environment. While learning pods may have been largely a makeshift response, more than half of families and three-quarters of instructors said they preferred their pod experiences to prior experiences in school.

Researchers studying learning pods found that, by 3-to-1, parents said that their kids felt more “known, heard, and valued” than they had in school and that, by 2-to-1, children were more engaged in their learning. Contrasting the intimate pod experience with the “anonymity” of school, one parent explained, “There’s no getting lost in this. In the pod, there’s no sneaking by without getting your work done like there would be in school.”

So, are pods a good idea? It depends. It depends on what they’re used for and how they’re constructed. But it’s not hard to imagine them providing more intensive support or an alternative learning environment for students who are struggling in a conventional classroom. School systems could help interested parents find one another, connect with local resources, and locate a qualified instructor; such aid could be especially valuable for low-income or non-English speaking families, who might find the option appealing but struggle to organize or finance learning pods on their own.

Microschools and Charter Teachers

Microschools are really small schools which provide the occasion to radically rethink the teacher’s role and the contours of the schoolhouse. Microschools typically have a few dozen students (or even fewer), who usually attend in person. The schools employ one (or a handful) of teachers to lead instruction. Unlike most learning pods, microschools aren’t supplemental programs; they are a child’s school.

For students lost amidst the oft-impersonal rhythms of institutional life, the intimate scale can be reassuring. This kind of environment may be a better fit for students who struggle with discipline or behavior in a conventional classroom. It also can allow for more personalization, parent-teacher collaboration, or advanced learning than the standard schoolhouse allows.

At the same time, microschools pose a host of challenges. How do they handle infrastructure? Teacher absences? Coverage of a full curriculum? What would it look like for school or system leaders to have the ability to arrange for internal microschools? The answers are very much a work in progress.

One particular version of microschooling is the “charter teacher” model, which would enable teachers to get state-granted authorization to operate autonomous classrooms within traditional district schools. Charter teachers would have wide latitude to hire assistants, choose how many students to instruct, decide how many classes they’d teach, and determine their own instructional model. Teachers would agree to be held accountable for student outcomes and only teach students whose parents choose to enroll their child with that teacher.

For a sense of how this might work, consider the pediatric model. Pediatricians typically work in partnerships, have a significant say when it comes to scheduling and hiring support staff, and choose how many patients to serve. At the same time, of course, patients are free to choose their pediatric practice and their pediatrician. (In one sense, the “charter teacher” approach simply democratizes access to the “choose-your-teacher” machinations regularly employed by connected parents who know how to pressure principals and work the system). Teachers disenchanted by large bureaucracies would have new freedom, while more flexible or part-time options could draw former educators back into the profession.

The charter teacher model isn’t currently in use. Putting it into practice would require state officials to establish a process by which teachers could demonstrate professional mastery or a record of high student achievement. Qualified teachers could obtain small grants to launch their own practices, after which they’d be funded on a per pupil basis developed by the school district.

Hybrid Homeschooling

It may be hard to fathom today but, a half-century ago, homeschooling was illegal across most of the U.S. A series of legal and political battles in the 1970s and 1980s changed that. By 2020, more than three million children a year were being homeschooled, a number that increased dramatically during the Covid-19 pandemic. But just what does it mean to “homeschool” a child?

While the term “homeschooling” may bring to mind a picture of a parent and a child sitting at a kitchen table, the reality is that most homeschool families make extensive use of networks, online resources, tutors, and much else. Indeed, the difference between homeschooling and a learning pod (or a microschool) is often just a matter of degree.

In the wake of the pandemic, there was broad interest in education options that incorporate more of what homeschooling provides. In 2022, two-thirds of parents with children in special education said they’d like a school schedule which had their child learning at home at least one day a week (though just 15 percent of parents wanted to do full-time homeschooling). Among other parents, more than half said they’d like to have their child home at least one day a week. Oh, and just over half of teens said they’d like to learn at home at least one day a week.

In other words, lots of parents and students are interested in maintaining some of the parent-child interaction they experienced during the pandemic but don’t want to be “homeschoolers.” Hybrid homeschooling seeks to provide what those families are seeking, with students enrolling in school for part of the week and learning from home for the other part. More than 1,000 hybrid homeschools have emerged across the country in recent years. Many are private schools, others are charter schools, and a handful are part of traditional school districts.

Arrangements can play out in many ways. A hybrid homeschool might have students in the building four days a week, with different classes (or grades) of students learning from home on different days. It might have all students learning at home on Mondays or Wednesdays or on certain mornings or afternoons. Some schools are more prescriptive when it comes to curricula, while others leave more to parent discretion. For younger children, parents generally play a much larger instructional role, while there’s more independent study for older children.

The feasibility of such arrangements depends on the laws of a given state, but school and system leaders may find state policies and federal regulations more accommodating than they’d have thought. In Idaho, for instance, if homeschool students use district programming on even a part-time basis, they’re included in district attendance counts for state funding. This has, not surprisingly, made it easier for districts to support homeschool families. And Idaho is far from alone—at least a dozen states have similar arrangements, although the rules vary with regards to services, student eligibility, and how funding works.

The Possibilities of Course Choice

Another approach to educational choice is course choice. Course choice is a way to move new options into a student’s current school rather than to move a student to a new school.

While some families want to switch schools, I noted a bit earlier that more than 70 percent of parents consistently say they’re satisfied with their child’s school. Of course, this doesn’t mean those parents like everything about their school. Families may want students to stay with friends, familiar teachers, and established routines but also have access to alternative courses. Overall satisfaction with a school doesn’t necessarily reflect satisfaction with the arts program, math curriculum, reading instruction, Advanced Placement offerings, or what-have-you. Even pre-pandemic, parents who liked their school might have still grumbled about these things. Now, with so many students forcibly acclimated to a variety of remote learning options and providers, it seems only sensible that students should be able to take advantage of such options without changing schools.

The notion of “course choice” allows students to tap into instructional options that aren’t available at a student’s school. Course choice gives students the ability to take courses beyond those offered by their local school district. These courses may be offered by neighboring districts, state higher education institutions, virtual learning providers, or specialized tutoring services. Course choice laws typically specify that a portion of the student’s per pupil outlay can be used to pay the costs of enrollment.

Students may be able to access courses in chemistry, constitutional law, or AP calculus even if their school lacks a chemistry teacher, a constitutional law class, or an AP math program. This can be a solution for small schools dealing with staffing constraints, struggling to attract teachers in certain subjects or fields, or where only a tiny number of students want to enroll in a given class.

Course choice programs can come in many flavors. New Hampshire’s “Learn Everywhere” program allows high school students to earn a “certificate of credit” from any program recognized by the state board of education which can demonstrate that students have met the learning objectives.

Course choice allows students in a high school with a short-staffed science department to still study advanced physics. And it can make it possible for students to study robotics or Russian, even if their school lacks the requisite staff. If this all sounds pretty far removed from our heated debates about school choice, you’ve got the idea.

A monument depicting an anchor
Parents value schools as community anchors.

What about Bad Choices?

Parents may make bad choices, just as with day care or dentists. But we also reasonably presume that parents will make better choices when they have better information. So, how can we supply the kind of information that can help parents make good choices?

State tests and other academic assessments are one useful, consistent gauge. While such data is necessary, few parents or teachers think it’s sufficient. Thus, it’s crucial to consider other ways to ensure quality. There is an array of potential tools, including:

  • Professional, systematic ratings of customer satisfaction, something akin to the information reported by sources like J.D. Powers and Associates. These make it easy for consumers to draw on the judgments of other users.
  • Scientific evaluations by credible third parties, such as those offered by Consumer Reports. Such objective evaluations allow experts to put new educational offerings through their paces and then score them on relevant dimensions of performance, as well as price.
  • Expert evaluation of services like those provided by health inspectors (or, in schooling, the famous example of the British School Inspectorate). Such evaluation focuses on examining processes and hard-to-measure outcomes, drawing on informed, subjective judgment.
  • Reports reflecting user experiences—essentially, drawing on the wisdom of crowds. Online providers routinely allow users to offer detailed accounts of the good and bad they’ve experienced, and the public to readily view what they have to say. While these results aren’t systematic or scientific, they are very good at providing context and color.

Of course, even with terrific information, parents can still make bad choices about schooling. But that’s true of pretty much anyone involved in schools: Teachers can make bad choices when deciding how to support a struggling student or design an individualized education program. Administrators can make bad choices when assigning a student to a school or teacher.

Schooling is suffused with choices. We should certainly ask what happens when a parent makes a poor choice. But we must also question the consequences of restrictive policies which limit parents’ ability to find better educational options for their kids.

Rethinking School Choice

It’s odd that the discussion of school choice has so often taken the shape of heated argument, given the intuitive appeal of the idea that all parents (rich and poor alike) should have a say in their kids’ schooling.

Our familiar fights are both distracting and odd. Consider that in a field like healthcare, even those most passionate about universal, publicly funded coverage still believe that individuals should be free to choose their own doctor. In housing, even the most ardent champion of public housing thinks families should get to choose where they live. There’s no debate about whether families should have agency when it comes to such high-stakes decisions in health care or housing. The same logic should apply in schooling. It’s not selfish or risky for parents to want a say in who teaches their kids or where their kids go to school. It’s normal.

It’s downright weird that educational choice has focused so narrowly on students changing schools. After all, we live in an era when extraordinary options have become routinely available.

In the end, the real promise of choice isn’t just that it can help students escape struggling schools. It’s that it can help make room for parents and educators alike to rethink how they want schools to work.

Adapted with permission from Hess, F. M. (2023). The Great School Rethink. Harvard Education Press. 

The post Choice Reconsidered appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49716668
Is Ron DeSantis’s Education Record Anything to Emulate? https://www.educationnext.org/is-ron-desantis-education-record-anything-to-emulate-forum-mattox-young/ Tue, 23 May 2023 09:00:04 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49716605 Expanding choice while fighting a culture war

The post Is Ron DeSantis’s Education Record Anything to Emulate? appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis reacts after signing a bill to expand school vouchers across Florida during a press conference at Christopher Columbus High School on Monday, March 27, 2023, in Miami.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis reacts after signing a bill to expand school choice across Florida during a press conference at Christopher Columbus High School on Monday, March 27, 2023, in Miami.

The governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, has emerged in recent years as a nationally significant political figure and a possible Republican presidential contender in part on the basis of his record in K–12 education. What has he actually accomplished in Florida? Are his tactics there worth emulating elsewhere, or would they best be avoided? William Mattox, the director of the Marshall Center for Educational Options at the James Madison Institute in Tallahassee, Florida, who is a registered independent, offers a more positive assessment, while Cathy Young, a fellow at the Cato Institute who also writes for The Bulwark, Newsday, and Reason, is more cautious about what DeSantis has done.

 

This article appeared in the Summer 2023 issue of Education Next. Suggested citation format:

Mattox, W., and Young, C. (2023). Is Ron DeSantis’s Education Record Anything to Emulate? Education Next, 23(3), 62-71.

The post Is Ron DeSantis’s Education Record Anything to Emulate? appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49716605