Search

This paper examines whether teachers in schools serving students from high-poverty backgrounds are as effective as teachers in schools with more advantaged students. The question is important. Teachers are recognized as the most important school factor affecting student achievement, and the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their better off peers is large and persistent. Using student-level microdata from 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 from Florida and North Carolina, the authors compare the effectiveness of teachers in high-poverty elementary schools (greater than 70% FRL students) with that of teachers in lower-poverty elementary schools (less than 70% FRL students). The results show that the average effectiveness of teachers in high-poverty schools is in general less than teachers in other schools, but only slightly, and not in all comparisons. The authors also find differences in within-school-type variation in teacher effectiveness in nearly every comparison. These differences are largely driven by the longer tail at the bottom of the teacher effectiveness distribution in high-poverty schools. Teachers at the top of the effectiveness distribution are very similar across school settings. The observed differences in teacher quality between high-poverty and lower-poverty schools are not due to differences in the observed characteristics of teachers, such as experience, certification status and educational attainment. Rather, they appear to arise from differences in the marginal return or payoff from increases in a characteristic. In particular, the gain in productivity from increased experience is much stronger in lower-poverty schools. The lower return to experience in high-poverty schools does not appear to be a result of differences in the quality of teachers who leave teaching or who switch schools. Rather, it may be the case that the effect of experience on teacher productivity may depend on the setting in which the experience is acquired. If there are positive spillovers among teachers that depend on teacher quality (ie. teacher "peer effects") or if exposure to challenging student populations lessens the future productivity of teachers (i.e. leads to "burn out"), teachers in schools serving large proportions of low-income students may simply not improve much as time goes by. These findings suggest that solutions to the achievement gap between high and lower-poverty schools may be complex. Changing the quality of new recruits or importing teachers with good credentials into high-poverty schools may not be sufficient. Rather, the findings suggest that measures that induce highly effective teachers to move to high-poverty schools and which promote an environment in which teachers' skills will improve over time are more likely to be successful. An appendix is included. (Contains 8 figures, 15 tables and 14 footnotes.) [This is an updated version of Working Paper 41.]

This paper describes the school mobility rates for elementary and middle school students in North Carolina and attempts to estimate the effect of school mobility on the performance of different groups of students using student fixed effects models. School mobility is defined as changing schools at times that are non-promotional (e.g., moving from middle to high school). We used detailed administrative data on North Carolina students and schools from 1997 to 2005 and followed four cohorts of 3rd graders for six years each. School mobility rates were highest for minority and disadvantaged students. School mobility rates for Hispanic students declined across successive cohorts, but increased for Black students. Findings on effects were most pronounced in math. School mobility hurt the math performance of Black and Hispanic students, but not the math performance of white students. School mobility improved the reading performance of white and more advantaged students, but had no effect on the reading performance of minority students. "Strategic" school moves (cross-district) benefitted or had no effect on student performance, but "reactive" moves (within district) hurt all groups of students. White and Hispanic students were more likely to move to a higher quality school while Blacks were more likely to move to a lower quality school. The negative effects of school mobility increased with the number of school moves. Tables are appended. (Contains 1 exhibit, 9 footnotes, 5 figures, and 15 tables.)

This research investigates the relative effectiveness (in terms of student tested achievement) of Teach for America (TFA) teachers, and examines the validity of the criticisms of TFA. Specifically, the authors look at TFA teachers in secondary schools, and especially in math and science, where considerable program growth is planned over the next few years. Using individual level student data linked to teacher data in North Carolina, the authors estimate the effects of having a TFA teacher compared to a traditional teacher on student performance. The North Carolina data they employ are uniquely suited for this type of analysis because it includes end of course (EOC) testing for students across multiple subjects. This allows them to employ statistical methods that attempt to account for the nonrandom nature of student assignments to classes/teachers, which have been shown to lead to biased estimates of the impact of teacher credentials (Clotfelter, Ladd, and Vigdor, 2007a; Goldhaber, 2007). The findings show that TFA teachers are more effective, as measured by student exam performance, than traditional teachers. Moreover, the authors suggest that the TFA effect, at least in the grades and subjects investigated, exceeds the impact of additional years of experience, implying that TFA teachers are more effective than experienced secondary school teachers. The positive TFA results are robust across subject areas, but are particularly strong for math and science classes. An appendix is included. (Contains 1 figure, 12 tables, 1 exhibit and 14 footnotes.) [This report was supported by the Steven L. Merrill Family Foundation.]

Standards-based education reform has a more than 20-year history. A standards-based vision was enacted in federal law under the Clinton administration with the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and carried forward under the Bush administration with the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. In a recent survey of policy makers, standards were acknowledged as the central framework guiding state education policy. Yet, despite this apparent unanimity about the intuitively appealing idea of standards, there is great confusion about its "operational" meaning: exactly what should the standards be, how should they be set and by whom, and how should they be applied to ensure rigorous and high-quality education for American students are the central questions that challenge policy makers and educators. For example, "content" standards (subject-matter descriptions of what students should know and be able to do) are often confused with "performance" standards (which are more like passing scores on a test), and very different theories of action are used to explain how standards-based reforms are expected to work. Ambitious rhetoric has called for systemic reform and profound changes in curriculum and assessments to enable higher levels of learning. In reality, however, implementation of standards has frequently resulted in a much more familiar policy of test-based accountability, whereby test items often become crude proxies for the standards. This disconnect between rhetoric and reality is one of the reasons for the failure of prior reforms. Standards-based education is still the core idea guiding education policy and education reform. But the foregoing issues need to be addressed if the promises of standards-based education are to be kept. As yet, neither state content standards nor state tests reflect the ambitions of standards-based reform rhetoric, and the link between high expectations for all students and capacity building has been almost forgotten. The intentions of standards-based education--to focus greater attention on student learning, to ensure the participation and success of all students, and to provide guidance for educational improvement--are in the best interest of the country. This paper offers the following recommendations: (1) The federal government should encourage the redesign and clear connection of content and performance standards--and the curricula, teacher training, and high-quality assessments to go with them--with the goal of developing clearly articulated statements of the expected progression of learning. Efforts to develop these components may involve partnerships among states, universities, groups of teachers, scholars, and the private sector; (2) The federal government should support research on accountability system indicators to reflect both the status and growth of students. Performance standards should set ambitious but realistic targets for teaching and learning, and they should communicate to the public, parents, educators, and students themselves what is to be learned. Assessment results should be reported in ways that recognize progress all along the achievement continuum; (3) The federal government should support the redesign and ongoing evaluation of accountability systems to ensure that they contribute to school improvement. Less than satisfactory school performance should trigger closer investigation of school operations before remedies or sanctions are applied, and stellar performances should also be verified. Different investigative approaches, including audit assessments, data-driven analyses, or expert constituted inspectorates, should be considered; and (4) The federal government should support an intensive program of research and development to create the next generation of performance assessments explicitly linked to well-designed content standards and curricula. (Contains 77 notes.)

While numerous recent authors have studied the effects of school accountability systems on student test performance and school "gaming" of accountability incentives, there has been little attention paid to substantive changes in instructional policies and practices resulting from school accountability. The lack of research is primarily due to the unavailability of appropriate data to carry out such an analysis. This paper brings to bear new evidence from a remarkable five-year survey conducted of a census of public schools in Florida, coupled with detailed administrative data on student performance. We show that schools facing accountability pressure changed their instructional practices in meaningful ways. In addition, we present medium-run evidence of the effects of school accountability on student test scores, and find that a significant portion of these test score gains can likely be attributed to the changes in school policies and practices that we uncover in our surveys. (Contains 45 footnotes, 10 tables, and 2 figures.)

Long before the onslaught of Hurricane Katrina or the chaos of evacuation, New Orleans' social infrastructure was failing. News coverage of the overcrowded Superdome and the city's flooded streets exposed the poverty and vulnerability of many residents, especially African Americans. As New Orleans begins to rebuild, can the city avoid the mistakes of the past, instead creating more effective social support for low-income and minority residents? Innovation and experience from other U.S. cities offer promising strategies for reducing the risks of poverty and opening up opportunities for economic security and success. This essay is from an Urban Institute collection that addresses employment, affordable housing, public schools, young children?s needs, health care, arts and culture, and vulnerable populations. All these essays assess the challenges facing New Orleans today and for years to come and recommend tested models for making the city's social infrastructure stronger and more equitable than it was before Katrina (Contains 4 notes.)

Both the United States and England initiated ambitious standards-based education reform to eliminate large gaps between their highest and lowest achievers. England appears to be ahead, having started in 1988 with a national curriculum, tests, and performance tables. The United States' No Child Left Behind Act began rewriting state rules in 2002 with more incentives and punitive measures aimed at school performance. Viewing the contrasts as opportunity, educators and policymakers from each side of the Atlantic gathered in Philadelphia in mid-October for the second half of a dialogue on urban education. As talk moved to action, participants planned such follow-up activities as sending a delegation of principals and teachers from Georgia to English schools and creating a New York City school with British educators. With communication channels opened, possibilities seemed endless for comparing and analyzing data on education reforms. Inevitably too, all agreed, the education dialogue should expand to more countries. This policy brief offers highlights from their discussions. [The "No City Left Behind" dialogue was a collaborative effort of the British Embassy, HM Government's Department for Education and Skills, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) in London, Temple University College of Education in Philadelphia, and The Urban Institute. Additional support was provided by Glaxco SmithKline, The Lenfest Foundation, Thompson-Peterson's Learning, the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Vocational and Adult Education and its Institute of Education Sciences through funding for the Laboratory for Student Success at Temple University's Center for Research in Human Development and Education.]

This paper reports results of the first systematic analysis of the progress of standards-based reform in U.S. school districts. Using data from a recent national survey of school districts (n=2,700) and a companion national survey of schools (n=1,177), it is found that not only do districts appear to play an important role, bigger districts appear to be particularly successful in promoting reform. Those who see reform as an exclusively state-school process may miss key ingredients for success. It is also a mistake to assume that large districts are not responsive. The benefits of larger size, however, appear to be moderated in high-poverty districts. An appendix contains questions on progress from the district and school surveys. (Contains 4 tables, 5 figures, and 31 references.) (Author/SLD)

The passage of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act and the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1994 represented a fundamental shift in the character of federal aid to education and demanded new roles and responsibilities for states, districts, and the federal government. This handbook presents findings from a national mail survey of school districts and a telephone or in-person survey of state officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The survey examined the levels of understanding that state and district administrators have of the new legislation; the progress they report making in implementing the reforms; and the helpfulness of various forms of assistance that are available to states and districts. The district survey was mailed during spring and early summer 1996, and elicited an overall response rate of 83 percent (n=2,700). A total of 95 state-level surveys were completed. Key findings led to the following recommendations to the Department of Education (ED): (1) Continue efforts to support state level reform; (2) continue to support intermediaries to provide assistance to states and school districts; (3) sponsor small working conferences; (4) devise an information-dissemination and technical-assistance strategy geared to small districts; and (5) give special attention to high-poverty districts on the various elements of standards-based reform. The Department of Education should invest heavily in research and development associated with assessment systems and should focus greater effort in identifying the most effective technical-assistance strategies to schools not making adequate progress. Finally, three recommendations are offered to ED for tapping into effective information channels: it should maintain its written and oral communication channels; it should take full advantage of non-federal education publications; and it should capitalize on the established connections of state-based and professional associations. A total of 19 tables and 30 charts are included. Appendices contain copies of the district and state survey instruments. (LMI)

The implications of decentralization reform on the amount of serious attention and effort that teachers give to teaching and learning activities are explored in this paper. The discussion is informed by the results of two case studies of school districts recognized as exemplary cases of decentralization. The first section describes limitations of the standard theoretical argument for decentralization, particularly the principal-agent approach. The two case studies are described in the second section, which is based on document analysis and interviews conducted with central office administrators in each of the two districts, four principals (two from each district), and a small group of teachers from each of the four schools. The most significant common element was the extent to which the districts' management arrangements generate interactions in the area of teachers' technical demands, that is, issues related to curriculum and teaching. A conclusion is that technical interactions among teachers form the basis for effective social control, motivational, and learning processes that are necessary to a well-run decentralized system. A critical element of successful decentralization is the explicit structuring of teacher interactions around technical demands. Structural reforms should: direct teachers' attention to their central functions, stimulate them to interact professionally around defined common objectives, and give them a sense of importance. (36 references) (LMI)

Findings from a study that examined the relationship between external environmental factors and effective school conditions are presented in this paper. A focus is on the ways in which the different "educational worlds" of urban, suburban, and rural high schools shape internal school processes. Methodology involved an analysis of the relationship of principal leadership and the teacher community to three categories of context variables--student characteristics, staff composition, and organizational context. High School and Beyond, a national longitudinal program, provided the data sources--a 1984 survey of 321 high schools and 4 data files on student, school, administrator, and teacher characteristics. Findings indicate that although the school systems differed in their social, political, and organizational settings, collegial support and principal leadership were fairly equally distributed across schools in the three sectors. Gender and district size were also significant variables. A recommendation is made for conducting "tailor-made" studies with a broader scope of analysis to formulate sensible policies within different settings. Three tables are included. The appendix contains measures of school organization variables. (20 references) (LMI)

Based on the view that an administrative organization is composed of interacting individuals and that work flows through an interaction process, this paper attempts to develop a methodology that allows for the study of work flow patterns. It also applies this methodology to a particular educational organization in order to understand its peculiar inner workings. The work flow model was developed to estimate the number of steps an administrative system took to handle different types of work. Data were collected from 52 managers in the central office of a large school district by randomly sampling their work activities over a 6-week period. Findings suggest that much of the work carried out in educational organizations is never completed (such as curriculum reform, discipline policy, or union relations). It was found that the primary carriers and producers of this type of work are upper-level managers. A large proportion of their work was generated by other upper-level managers and probably will also be passed to upper-level managers. This holds for both routine and nonroutine work. These findings are interpreted to mean that upper-level managers spend much time discussing irresolvable issues while lower-level managers are more likely to complete the tasks they undertake. (Author/JM)

Reports on the effect of external political pressure on the distribution of influence in school districts. Focuses specifically on the influence exercised by school-level administrators and teachers on school-level policy. Expounds on a theory of local variation across institutional organizations using the High School and Beyond study. (CFR)