A100 Week 4

1. A100 Week 4

2. Plan for Today • Hour 1: Reform from the “outside in” • The big picture: the movement to challenge the “blob” • Hour 2: Closer examination • Do the reformers have the right critique? The right solutions? • Hour 3: New Orleans: A full blown example • What do the reformers’ preferred reforms look like in action? What can we learn from this case?

3. New Topic: “Reform From the Outside In”

4. An Opening Query Reformers often say that there is an educational “monopoly” in the United States. What aspects of schooling have traditionally been monopoly controlled?

5. Monopolies and Choice in U.S Schooling Up until 1990, this critique has focused almost exclusively on the “demand” side: Do I have choice in where to go to school? In this sense, the neighborhood school traditionally had monopoly power over neighborhood residents – if you lived in Somerville, you were going to Somerville Elementary School (unless you had money for a private or Catholic school). Solution: Parent and student choice (vouchers)

6. Layers of Thinking About Improving Schooling at Scale Components of reform System Account- ability Federal Knowledge r &d Human capital Org process in schools States Districts Schools

7. Six Monopolies in Schooling: Who Decides?(Mostly on the Supply Side) Who gets to become a teacher? Who gets to start or run a school? Who gets to make decisions about what happens at a school (school or district?) Who trains teachers and principals?  What rules govern the system? Who develops knowledge for school improvement? TFA/TNTP Charter laws; CMOs Portfolio districts (NO) NLNS, Broad D.C. (Rhee), S.D. (Bersin) Teacher U, Match

8. Challenger #1: Deregulating Teaching Traditional New Approaches • Ed schools train • Much classroom time + some field experience • States accredit ed schools • Teach for America, New Teacher Project (TNTP): • 5-6 weeks in summer • Two year commitment • Teacher residencies: • 1 year “residency” before teaching full-time • 3. No requirements, let the principals decide

9. Challenger #2: Charter Schools and CMOs Traditional New Approaches • District neighborhood schools • Schools allocated on basis of population • Schools do not compete for students • Schools subject to all district regulations Charter schooling: trade autonomy for results Key networks: KIPP, Uncommon, Achievement First, Green Dot, Aspire Share across networks rather than top down implementation Success of these schools makes them a political force (i.e. Waiting for Superman)

10. Challenger #3: Portfolio Districts Traditional New Approaches • District neighborhood schools • Schools implement rules and regs of districts and states • Role of superintendent is to develop programs for all schools • Portfolio districts (Philadelphia, New Orleans, Mapleton, Co New York to some degree) • Goal here is to develop “system of schools” rather than “school system” • District role to manage enrollment, close failing schools, incubate new schools (not to micromanage schools) • Schools opening and closing expected part of the system

11. Challenger #4: Training Teachers and Principals Traditional New Approaches • Education schools • Traditional focus: • Pedagogy, child and adolescent development, race and cultural differences, • New Leaders for New Schools • Broad Residency • Focus: • Organizational management, classroom management, effective schools correlates, practices of top charter schools. • Louisiana: Law to hold teacher prep institutes accountable for value-added test scores.

12. Challenger #5: What Rules & Norms Govern the System Traditional New Approaches • Superintendents work with schools and unions to develop programs for school improvement • Professional development is key • Need to find ways to serve the kids and the adults • Examples: Boston, Montgomery County • Superintendents seek to steamroll unions and hold teachers and schools accountable for performance • “Serve the kids and not the adults” • Examples: D.C. under Rhee, San Diego under Bersin

13. Challenger #6: Who Creates Knowledge and of What Kind Traditional New Approaches • Ed schools • Researchers develop disciplinary traditions and then try to disseminate for use by practitioners • 1. Researchers outside of ed schools (particularly economists) • More driven by questions of practice • Creation of the Institute for Educational Sciences in 2002 • 2. Teachers creating own knowledge Match Grad School of Ed, Teacher U in New York.

14. The landscape of reform actors Superintendents (Rhee, Klein, Bersin, Bennet) CMOs (Kipp, Achievement First, Uncommon Schools, Yes Prep, Green Dot) Human capital orgs (TFA, NLNS, TNTP) Incubator and convenor (New Schools Venture Fund) Agitators (NCTQ, Democrats for Ed. Reform) Researchers (Tom Kane, Caroline Hoxby, Eric Hanushek) Think tanks (Education Trust, Fordham, Citizens Commission on Civil Rights) Foundations (Broad, Gates) Politicians (Fenty, Booker, Nutter, Kevin Johnson)

15. The landscape of reform: Some Less Familiar Names New Leaders for New Schools (NLNS): Founded in 2000 by a group of HBS students Co-founded Jon Schnur (co-leader, Obama transition team) Draws on effective schools correlates Very selective: Less than 10 percent accepted Diverse: 55% African American, 65% female One year residency, on-site coaching Core beliefs “Adults are responsible for ensuring that all students excel academically.” http://www.nlns.org/Criteria.jsp Goals: measurable progress towards closing ach. gap

16. The landscape of reform: Some Less Familiar Names The New Teacher Project (TNTP) Founded in 1997 by Wendy Kopp and Michelle Rhee Work with districts to set up alternative certification routes into teaching (e.g. NYC teaching fellows) Selective: 15% or less acceptance rates Diversity: NYC teaching fellows, 50% white, 20% African American, 20% Latino

17. The landscape of blowing it up: Some Less Familiar Names The New Teacher Project Research/advocacy: Pressure districts into better practices Missed Opportunities (2003): 30-60% of applicants to urban districts lost b/c of district slowness The Widget Effect (2009): Less than 1% of teachers receive bad performance ratings ¾ of teachers no specific feedback on performance ½ of districts have not dismissed a single tenured teacher in last 5 years

18. The landscape of blowing it up: Some Less Familiar Names The New Schools Venture Fund Founded in 1998 to support education entrepreneurship Has funded many of the organizations on the previous slide http://www.newschools.org/portfolio/ventures Serves as a convening place for those entrepreneurial organizations $150 million for 40 non-profits Focused on cities friendly to the mission (Chicago, D.C., New York, New Orleans)

19. The landscape of blowing it up: Some Less Familiar Names National Council on Teaching Quality Providing research support for alternative certification Negligible value of masters degrees What do people learn in ed schools? Emphasis on subject matter preparation as opposed to pedagogy Emphasize selectivity of teachers’ colleges Pushing for higher admissions rates to ed. schools

20. The landscape of blowing it up: Some Less Familiar Names Democrats for Education Reform Against unions, pro accountability Highly critical of Democrats who support teachers’ unions Muckrakers Exec director Joe Williams, author “Cheating our Kids: How Politics and Greed Ruin Education.”

21. The landscape of Reform: A network diagram New York City (Klein NYC Teaching Fellows TNTP Achievement First NLNS KIPP TFA Teacher U New Schools Venture Fund

22. A query What are the common assumptions that unite this coalition?

23. Assumptions Shared by the Education Equality Group Closing the achievement gap is central School accountability key to progress No excuses Everything should be assessed by ability to contribute to value-added test scores Unions are at the center of the problem; kids over adults B-school methods are helpful Clear goals; devolved responsibility

24. A few takeaway thoughts about these reformers They have injected remarkable energy, talent, and passion for social justice into the education sector Numerically small, politically large Their theory of politics may unnecessarily alienate potential allies (e.g. D.C) Their long term goal is to “tip the sector” -- and there is not really a strategy for how to get from here to there Will they eventually merge into regular district structures or will they remain as outside challengers?

25. New Topic: Portfolio Districts, the New Orleans Example

26. Case Method: A Series of Questions

27. New Orleans • 1. What were the major changes to the governance of the system after Katrina?

28. New Orleans • 1. What were the major changes to the governance of the system after Katrina? • 2. What is the theory of action? What makes it distinctive?

29. New Orleans • 1. What were the major changes to the governance of the system after Katrina? • 2. What is the theory of action? What makes it distinctive? • 3. What resources do they have that are useful?

30. New Orleans • What were the major changes to the governance of the system after Katrina? • What is the theory of action? What makes it distinctive? • What resources do they have that are useful? • What are the major challenges or barriers to implementing their vision?

31. New Orleans • What were the major changes to the governance of the system after Katrina? • What is the theory of action? What makes it distinctive? • What resources do they have that are useful? • What are the major challenges or barriers to implementing their vision? • How would we assess their theory of action today? What parts are right? What parts are they missing?

32. New Orleans • What were the major changes to the governance of the system after Katrina? • What is the theory of action? What makes it distinctive? • What resources do they have that are useful? • What are the major challenges or barriers to implementing their vision? • How would we assess their theory of action today? What parts are right? What parts are they missing? • What can we learn from the New Orleans model? What of it is applicable to other cities?

33. Feedback cards • Front • Think back over our past 4 weeks. What kinds of discussions have been most valuable? (Not lecture vs. small group, but more substantively – what kinds of talking, thinking or writing have been good?). Be specific. • Back • 2. What kinds of discussions/activities have been less good, or left you frustrated? Be specific.