The Center on Education Policy (CEP) has issued a study which provides the most comprehensive analysis of test data from all 50 states since 2002 (the year the federal law No Child Left Behind was implemented).

The study shows that, in states with complete data, students have performed significantly better on state reading and math tests. The achievement gap between minority and white students appears to be closing in many states, although it is still a large gap. The gains were higher in math than in reading and were larger at elementary schools than in middle or high schools.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requires all public school students to be tested in reading and math annually in grades 3 through 8 (ages 9-14) and once in high school. Schools which do not meet ‘adequate yearly progress’ (AYP) face a series of sanctions.

The CEP, an independent advocate for public education and more effective schools, is quick to say that many states had begun the process of school reform before the implementation of NCLB and that the federal law is part of a mix of school reforms which are now producing the desired improvement.

Supporters of NCLB hope that this report will provide the impetus to get the law reauthorized before the end of the year (and before the country heads into more intense presidential campaigning which will make reauthorization less likely).

The law, which originally passed with broad bipartisan support, has met with controversy over its implementation. Conservatives do not like the expansion of federal involvement in education while liberal critics do not support increased testing and the potential loss of creativity in the classroom.

States set their own tests and standards, and accusations of easier tests and a lowering of standards in some states to meet AYP have caused skeptics to question the validity of test results.

The CEP report calls for more transparency in test data to get a more accurate picture of what is happening nationwide.

For more information read the CEP’s press release and the full report Answering the Question That Matters Most: Has Student Achievement Increased Since No Child Left Behind?

(Sources: The Washington Post June 6, 2007; Education Week June 6, 2007)

A growing number of educators believe that zero-tolerance disciplinary policies are ineffective as they result in those who can least afford to miss their education being excluded. Youth advocacy and civil rights groups say a disproportionate number of African-American boys receive suspensions or exclusions.

Baltimore public schools, which have a high exclusion rate, are experimenting with alternative strategies to deal with relatively minor infractions such as insubordination, disrespect, truancy, and tardiness.

Funded, in part, by the Open Society Institute-Baltimore (established by philanthropist George Soros) the city has introduced outside groups to work with schools.

One of the largest groups is Sports4Kids which provides organized sports and games during a mandatory recess and after school. The group leads children in resolving their conflicts peacefully, and often appoints known troublemakers as “junior coaches” to give them responsibility.

Schools report a change in the behavioral climate both within the classroom and on the playground. Principals believe the improved behavior will lead to higher achievement academically.

Find out more about the Open Society Institute’s work in Baltimore and the California-based Sports4Kids.

(Source: Education Week April 25, 2007)

Building on a body of research, a new report examines what it takes to offer engaging after-school activities for young people. It aims to detail key activity characteristics and provide educators with a strategy for keeping learners engaged.

The study, by Public/Private Ventures, asks three questions:

• What conditions lead youth to want to attend the activity?

• What aspects of an after-school activity, such as the staff’s behaviors and the activity’s structure, lead youth to be highly engaged?

• What conditions lead youngsters to feel they have learned in an activity?

The researchers looked at the experience in five of Philadelphia’s Beacon Centers.

Beacon Centers are school-based community centers, providing a range of services to all community members and emphasizing after-school opportunities for youth. There are now 24 in Philadelphia placed in disadvantaged areas.

The centers have two goals: to be community resource centers for families and adults; and to provide enrichment opportunities for youth (academic, leadership, artistic, or training).

The study highlights two essential components of successful after-school programs: effective group management and positive adult support. The report also offers policymakers and program operators a guide for creating engaging learning environments after school time.

For further details, read Quality Time After School: What Instructors Can Do to Enhance Learning.

(Source: American Youth Policy Forum e-bulletin May 2007)

The Friedman Foundation, a strong supporter of school choice programs, has issued a report that examines the growing school choice movement and calculates the fiscal impact of each school choice program to date.

Specifically, the report looks at voucher programs and tax-credit scholarships operating in 10 states and the District of Columbia:

• Voucher programs enable parents to use public funds (usually provided by the state) to help pay for their child’s tuition at a private school.

• Tax-credit programs allow either individuals or corporations to receive a tax credit for donating money to scholarship granting organizations. These organizations then award scholarships to students, which they can use to attend the private schools of their choice.

The report concludes that voucher programs do not take money unfairly out of the public school system (as claimed by opponents). The researchers use their data to show that school choice programs have saved districts and states $444 million (£225.4m*) nationally since their inception in 1990.

Vouchers, however, remain a highly divisive topic with public opinion split almost equally. Supporters view them as a lifeboat for children to escape schools which are not meeting their needs. Opponents see them as taking much-needed money away from public schools without offering parents real choice (vouchers usually do not meet the full cost of private education).

In addition there are legal issues surrounding vouchers. The state supreme court in Florida declared them unconstitutional ruling that they violated the separation of church and state (many children using vouchers attend Roman Catholic school as they are often all they can afford). For background see our February 2006 US Update.

States continue to pass voucher legislation. This month, Georgia passed legislation enabling children with special needs to attend private school with a voucher worth up to $9,000 (£4,568*).

Research on the impact of vouchers on student achievement and school quality is limited. A study of the voucher program in Cleveland, Ohio, showed some increased achievement for students in specific subject areas but little overall difference when compared to peers in public schools. In the case of a randomised study in New York two different groups of authors arrived at different conclusions on the performance of students participating in a voucher program.

The District of Columbia which has the highest per student expenditure in the country (including the first federally funded voucher program known as the Opportunity Scholarship Program) also has one of the lowest student achievement rates.

The US Department of Education released a report this month which looks at the impact of DC's voucher program in its first year. The report shows "no statistically significant difference in test scores" between students participating in the program and those who are not. The study did report higher parental satisfaction with the school and their child's safety. The Department of Education emphasized that it is early days for the program and that this is the first of three studies.

To find out more, read:

Education by the Numbers: The Fiscal Effect of School Choice Programs, 1990-2006.

Evaluation of the Cleveland Scholarship (Voucher) and Tutoring Program (1998-2004) from the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy at Indiana University.

Another Look at the New York City School Voucher Experiment Princeton University, Krueger and Zhu.

School Choice in New York City After Three Years: An Evaluation of the School Choice Scholarships Program Mathematica Policy Research Inc, Mayer, Petersen et.al.

Evaluation of D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts After One Year US Department of Education's Institute of Educational Sciences, and its press release.

* Current exchange rate: $1.97 = 1GBP

(Source: The Education Gadfly May 17, 2007; The Washington Post June 22, 2007)

Florida and Wisconsin are looking to change the way they identify gifted children within their school population. They say this is part of a national trend to reach out to groups (minority, poor or students with disabilities) who are generally under-represented in academically-advanced classes.

Unlike special education, there is no federal policy for overseeing how states handle the education of their gifted children. States vary on definitions of “gifted” and the educational provisions for those children.

The federal No Child Left Behind Act has focused on raising the standards of underachieving students. Many educators want more attention given to educating gifted children and ensuring that they are properly identified.

Wisconsin is proposing the use of a portfolio of information on each student rather than relying on a single measure or test, and is following guidelines provided by the National Association for Gifted Children.

Florida wants to use the state’s standardized test (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test) rather than an IQ result.

For additional information, visit the National Association for Gifted Children and read their definitions of gifted, and position statements on education issues under Information and Resources.

Also, the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (University of Connecticut) provides research-based resources for parents and educators.

(Source: Education Week April 6, 2007)

A report from the Fordham Institute and the American Institutes for Research looks at the “autonomy gap” – the autonomy that public school principals believe they need to be effective leaders and the autonomy they actually have.

The researchers surveyed 33 elementary school principals, including some at charter schools, in three states.

The results indicate that

• The autonomy gap is greatest when it comes to making personnel decisions. Principals are tied to state policies, school district procedures and collective bargaining agreements. The gap is smaller in non-unionized states, and charter school principals report greater autonomy.

• Most principals are optimistic and feel that they possess the autonomy to exercise strong leadership. Many accept the system and have learned how to work it. Principals who have been in their position for a long time have learned how to build effective relationships for negotiation and have honed their skills over time. This amounts to a stronger sense of autonomy whether real or not.

• Principals in both unionized and non-unionized (or “right-to-work”) states felt equally limited in their power to dismiss ineffective teachers.

The topic of autonomy in school leadership is especially valid in the era of the federal law No Child Left Behind and its emphasis on accountability. Many are questioning how a principal can be held accountable for school results if s/he does not have true control over budget, personnel and curriculum.

For more information, download and read The Autonomy Gap.

(Source: Education Gadfly April 11, 2007)

The Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) schools have published their annual report on demographic profiles and student achievement.

KIPP are charter schools (public, open-enrollment schools run independently of the traditional public school system and often free of district regulations) which emphasize preparation for college. They typically comprise middle schools students in grades five through eight (ages 11-14) although some elementary and high schools have opened recently. They are characterized by a much longer school day (7.30 a.m. – 5 p.m.), adherence to a rigorous curriculum and the “five pillars”: High Expectations, Choice & Commitment, More Time, Power to Lead, and Focus on Results.

Forty-four of the existing 52 KIPP schools are profiled in the report (the schools not included are too new to have reliable data). According to the report, 59 percent of KIPP students outperformed their local districts in reading while 74 percent performed higher in mathematics. (This is notable as KIPP students generally begin the program lagging by several grades in these subjects.) By 8^th grade 100 percent of the KIPP students outperformed their district peers in both subjects.

The report also includes information on a minority of schools which have not lived up to the KIPP goal in achievement. In some cases, schools have had their association with the KIPP revoked.

Although some analysts caution against what they see as media hype over the KIPP schools, educators and policymakers are watching the program very carefully.

To find out more read the highlights of the KIPP report.

(Sources: The Washington Post April 24, 2007; Education Gadfly May 10, 2007)

Adrian Fenty, Mayor of the District of Columbia, has assumed control of DC’s public school system. The troubled school district, with around 55,000 students, has some of the lowest test scores in the nation.

Mayor Fenty will be in charge of the schools, their budget and the plan for extensive modernization of the district’s deteriorating buildings. The school board will now play the role of a state board of education with the power to decide policies on instructional time and academic standards.

One of Mayor Fenty’s first actions was to appoint Michelle Rhee, a young entrepreneur, as his chancellor. Ms Rhee ran the non-profit The New Teacher Project which recruits teachers for hard-to-place schools. The move has been viewed as a sign of the importance of quality teachers in turning around the district’s schools.

Mayor Fenty’s take-over of DC’s public school system signals a trend which began in 1995 when Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daly assumed control of the city's poorly-performing schools. Chicago has seen a gradual but consistent rise in standardized test scores following Mayor Daly’s introduction of school reforms such as Renaissance 2010 (see our previous Update January 2005).

The trend reflects a frustration of many mayors who find themselves accountable to their electorate for a public school system over which they have very little control.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg began running his city’s schools in 2002, and the Mayors in Boston and Cleveland also have direct control over their school districts.

The path to assuming control is not always smooth. In Los Angeles, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has been attempting, so far unsuccessfully, to gain some authority over the troubled Los Angeles Unified School District. Last year the state passed a law granting the mayor some control of the 708,000 student system. A court has ruled that the law violates the California state constitution so it has not been implemented and the mayor’s attempt is ongoing.

For additional background on the political context for a mayor’s role in education, the challenges, and examples of strategies, read Mayoral Leadership and Involvement in Education: An Action Guide for Success issued in 2006 by the United States Conference of Mayors.

(Sources: Education Week May 23 and June 20, 2007; American Youth Policy Forum e-bulletin April 2006)

Education Sector, an education policy think tank, has issued an analysis of the global competition for students and how the USA is faring.

According to State Department statistics, the number of international students coming to the USA is rising but it is still well below pre-September 11^th levels.

The analysis examines the reasons for the decline such as increased security provisions affecting visa applications, more aggressive competition from other countries for top international students, and demographic shifts in sending and receiving countries.

The Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) surveyed its 145 member institutions and has released a report showing that, although numbers are slowly rising, applications from international students are down 27 percent since 2003. This study is the first of a three part survey looking at applications, admissions and enrollment of international graduate students.

Find out more by reading The Race to Attract International Students from the Education Sector and Findings from the 2007 CGS International Graduate Admissions Survey from the CGS.

(Sources: Education Sector Biweekly Digest April 3, 2007; Chronicle of Higher Education April 16, 2007)

Further to the final report from the Commission on the Future of Higher Education (see November 2006 Update for background), the US Department of Education wants to hold colleges more accountable for the $90 billion (£45.7 billion*) that they receive in federal student aid.

The Department of Education wants a greater emphasis placed on student learning outcomes. College accreditors would take into account such factors as degree completion rates, job placement rates or the pass rate on state licensing examinations, where applicable, during the accrediting process.

Currently, the accrediting process focuses primarily on factors such as the quality of the faculty staff or the institution’s facilities.

Negotiations between representatives of the US Department of Education and colleges (and college accreditors) on the proposed changes have reached a stalemate.

Although many colleges agree with the need to change the accrediting process, some argue that the proposals would mean that accrediting agencies, rather than the colleges, would be responsible for deciding the criteria for measuring student outcomes. They argue that it is the responsibility of the colleges to make the changes and do not wish to see the federal government get involved in academic policy.

* Current exchange rate: $1.97 = 1GBP

(Source: Chronicle of Higher Education April 27, 2007)