Welcome to the Profit of Education website. Continuing the conversation begun in the book Profit of Education, we discuss the latest economic evidence on education reform.

More experienced teachers get assigned higher scoring students

One suspects that more experienced teachers get handed easier to teach students. Not always of course, but on average. One mechanism is that more experienced teachers move to districts with higher socioeconomic status teachers, or move to “nicer” schools within a district. Demetra Kalogrides, Susanna Loeb, and Tara Béteille look at assignments within schools in Miami-Dade County (the fourth largest U.S. school district.). Perhaps not surprisingly, the more experience a teacher has the higher her students’ test scores the previous year.

Here’s the authors’ picture.

tests and teacher experience

Prior year math score versus teacher experience

You can see that more experienced teachers are handed students who had relatively better scores the year before. To help understand if this is a big effect or just small one, it helps to know that a year of learning corresponds roughly to 0.6 on the vertical scale. So for middle/high school teachers, the effect is quite small for the first eight or nine years of experience. At the elementary school level, a teacher with five years of experience gets handed students who are almost a month ahead of the students given to a new teacher.

The research on the effect of experience on student learning is clear that teachers don’t do as well their first two or three years. After about five years it appears that the experience/results profile is flat, although the issue isn’t absolutely settled. This suggests to me–but doesn’t prove–that assignments largely reflect the clout of more experienced teachers, rather than principals trying to match teachers and students in the most effective way.

Share
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 1 Comment

One Response to More experienced teachers get assigned higher scoring students

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Depressing news on school turnarounds

Thomas Dee provides some very careful, and somewhat depressing, evidence on the effectiveness of “School Turnarounds.” Let’s talk about the “careful” part first, then I’ll explain why the Dee’s findings are on the depressing side.

The idea of a “school turnaround” is that you make massive rather than incremental changes in hopes of breaking the cycle where every problem a school has drags down attempts to remedy every other problem. Typically, a major reform program is put in place, the principal is replaced, and sometimes many of the teachers are replaced. In the wake of the Great Recession, the Federal government offered serious bucks to states which implemented school turnarounds in really low performing schools. In the case of California, schools chosen to do a turnaround averaged $1,500 per student–that’s a lot of money.

Why can’t you just compare turnaround schools with non-turnaround schools to see which do better? In the first place, turnaround schools are selected precisely because they’re low performers. The turnaround might make them do better than they would have otherwise, but still look like low performers compared to other schools. And secondly, turnaround schools may well be selected from the “best of the worst.” That means that even without the turnaround these schools might have done better than other schools close to the bottom.

What Dee did was to compare schools just barely eligible for the Federal program to schools that just missed being eligible. The two sets of schools should be pretty much alike, so comparing these schools does tell us something about the effect of turnarounds. (What Dee actually did is a lot more statistically complicated, but this is the basic idea.)

Now the depressing part. The turnarounds, which I remind you were handed a lot of extra money, did better but not by much. To show you this, I’ve taken one of Dee’s graph’s and edited it some.

Dee edited

Dee graphed outcomes on the vertical scale against baseline scores on the horizontal scale. He drew in the vertical red line at the cutoff for eligibility. You can see that schools just to the left of the red line (those eligible for a turnaround program) did a little better than those to the right (not eligible).

Of course not all schools eligible for a turnaround did one. I’ve added in the thick blue arrow to show Dee’s estimates of what the turnaround did for schools which took up the challenge. The blue arrow’s just not very tall. So the aggressive turnaround program did have a positive effect. The effect just wasn’t very big.

Share
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Better schools versus better neighborhoods

Do we have to fix neighborhoods to get better education for poor kids? Let’s hope not. There’s strong evidence that better neighborhoods don’t improve educational outcomes if the better neighborhoods don’t also have better schools. Roland Fryer and Lawrence Katz write about the evidence in a paper in the newest American Economic Review Papers & Proceedings. (Katz also talks about  the evidence in his Society of Labor Economics Presidential address.)

A federal government experiment between 1994 and 1998 (“Moving to Opportunity”) randomly chose poor families living in public housing in high-poverty neighborhoods to receive a housing voucher that let them move to much better neighborhoods. Fryer and Katz follow-up on the differences the vouchers made after a decade or more. Those who moved did end up in much lower poverty neighborhoods, poverty rates dropped roughly from 53 percent to 34 percent. There were good results from the move in terms of health and self-assessed well-being. (See Ludwig et. al.) So in important ways the better neighborhoods improved lives of poor people.

But schools weren’t much different in the new neighborhoods. Average test scores in the new schools were only three percentile points higher and free or reduced-price lunch participation fell by only four percentage points. So what happened to education with better neighborhoods but the same-old kind of schools?

Academic achievement? Educational attainment? Essentially zip. Nothing improved. And this includes kids who grew up in the better neighborhoods, not just those who moved after starting school.

Very discouraging news for those who think that if only we can fix neighborhoods our educational problems will be taken care of too.

Share
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Raising standards, GPAs, and race

The draft accreditation standards for schools of education call for higher average high school GPAs for teacher training programs, specifically that the average GPA should be 3.0 or better. Will raising this standard have a disparate impact on minority students? I think not.

Here’s a table I made from Baccalaureate and Beyond that breaks down high school GPA’s by race.

GPA above cutoff by raceNote that the majority of students from all groups already have GPAs above 3.0. So there’s not too much reason to be concerned that a GPA requirement will affect any group very much.

One caveat: These are national numbers. I don’t know if there are particular teacher training programs with a clientele centered on minority students with low GPAs.

Share
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

One Response to Raising standards, GPAs, and race

  1. GPAs are worthless, without a standardized test score to back them up. Majority minority schools (charter or urban comprehensive) produce transcripts with not even a passing resemblance to the reality of the education provided.

    If all ed schools do is require GPAs without an SAT/ACT score, it will just mean that teachers will be further pressured to give better grades to blacks and Hispanics. Meanwhile, whites and Asians with SAT/ACT scores a full standard deviation higher will be locked out because of an utterly moronic belief that GPAs have meanings.

    If you’re going to raise teacher “quality”–a foolish and probably misguided goal to begin with–then it’s got to be done with test scores, not grades.

    Not that any of this matters, because the blacks and Hispanics who are let in with low SAT scores will never be able to pass the credential tests.

    You really need to understand that ed school standards are ludicrously irrelevant. Right now, they require candidates to pass the credential test before being accepted. So long as that requirement doesn’t change, SAT scores and grades are meaningless.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

School spending and student outcomes

Economists largely believe that simply increasing spending on schools doesn’t do much to improve students’ outcomes. An important part of the evidence is due to “David Card and A. Abigail Payne”.

Card and Payne looked at court ordered changes in equalization payments. They found that moving money into poor districts (probably) helped close the gap between student outcomes in poor versus rich districts, but that the effect was small.

You can’t just compare student outcomes in low spending versus high spending districts because factors other than spending also differ. Card and Payne focused on changes that were exogenous. The effect of court orders was to move money toward poor districts, presumably with very little change in who the districts were educating.

Their conclusion:

spending equalizations that followed …court rulings in 12 states over the 1980s closed the gap in average SAT scores between children with highly-educated and poorly-educated parents by about 8 points, or roughly 5 percent.

Five percent isn’t much.

Share
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

One Response to School spending and student outcomes

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

What Can Be Done To Improve Struggling High Schools?

Highly recommended reading: “What Can Be Done To Improve Struggling High Schools?”. Also very easy reading. Also very depressing reading.

Julie Berry Cullen and coauthors note that almost all high schools emphasize preparing students for an academic/college bound track, and put together a case that for the many students who enter high school far behind this policy simply fails. They argue that smart vocational training would help such students move part way up the economic ladder, while the single-minded academic emphasis gets them nothing at all.

The authors understand perfectly well what a distressing thing this is to hear. I recommend the article because (a) they might be right (I hope not, and suspect they hope not too); (b) they give very straightforward summaries of what we know about interventions that haven’t worked; and (c) they describe some interventions that do seem to hold promise.

Among the interventions examined are:

  • Just throwing in money (doesn’t work).
  • Better principals and teachers (may well work, but hard to arrange).
  • Allowing students to transfer to better schools. (Students don’t often take up the opportunity.)
  • “Whole school reform” (some positive effect).
  • Small schools movement (some limited successes, but largely given up on).
  • Career and technical magnet schools (some evidence of success).
  • Charter schools (no better on average than other schools).
  • “No excuses” schools (evidence of significant success, but hard to scale up).

Here are a few taste-whetting quotes from the article:

…we suggest that underperforming high schools are failing in large part because traditional paradigms do not meet the needs of many of their students. The majority of high schools have sought to provide all students with academic skills from a primarily college-preparatory and nonexperiential perspective, with limited nonacademic supports. … Yet, this emphasis is likely setting many high schools up to fight a losing battle, because a higher proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds lack the requisite skills to succeed by this definition.

In essence, our advice to high schools when it comes to underperforming students is to redefine the mission and eschew traditional success metrics like test scores, focusing instead on more pragmatic objectives like keeping kids out of trouble, giving them practical life skills, and helping with labor market integration. That conclusion will no doubt be unsatisfying to many readers. In an ideal world, high schools would perform miracles, bringing struggling students back from the brink and launching them towards four-year college degrees. Indeed, a few remarkable and innovative schools seem to be succeeding at that lofty objective.

Focusing policy on changes in resources may be effective in early grades, where there is potential for such investments to improve students’ cognitive and noncognitive skill levels and trajectories. In contrast, the area of reform with the largest potential to improve high school outcomes like graduation is to provide struggling students with an increased variety of targeted educational models and schools….The most hopeful results have been seen in this area.

Share
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 1 Comment

One Response to What Can Be Done To Improve Struggling High Schools?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Raising standards, SATs, and race

The draft accreditation standards for schools of education call for higher average SAT scores for teacher training programs. This raises an uncomfortable question about race. Students from racial minorities score lower on the SAT than do white students. Will the new standards reduce the number of minority students who become teachers? There’s not a definitive answer, but there’s good reason to worry.

The draft accreditation standards don’t have an SAT cutoff, but my back of the envelope calculations suggest that ed schools will largely be recruiting from students with SAT’s above 880 (old scale). I made a table from Baccalaureate and Beyond that breaks down SAT’s by race.

SAT above cutoff by raceOnly about two-thirds as many black students score above 880 when compared to white students. For Hispanic students the number is closer to a half. So there is real cause for concern.

But a reminder: The new accreditation standards set an average SAT goal. They don’t set a cutoff that applies to any particular student. Ed schools are free to recruit low SAT students who have other good characteristics, so long as they bring in enough high SAT students. The numbers do suggest that we could lose a lot of minority teacher candidates is admission committees aren’t paying attention to the situation.

(Thanks go to Brian Jacob for nudging me to make this table.)

Share
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

3 Responses to Raising standards, SATs, and race

  1. Sigh. You really don’t think much about credentialing tests, do you?

    The Higher Education Act of 1998 or so made a change that resulted in all ed schools requiring that their candidates pass the credentialing tests before they enter the program. The credentialing pass rates are quite dismal. The ed schools can make whatever “adjustments” they like–of course, you do know that affirmative action is illegal in a few states, right?–but a degree is nothing without the credential, and the URM passing rates on the credential test are a bloodbath.

    http://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/radio-silence-on-clarence-mumford/
    http://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/more-on-mumford/

    http://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2013/03/31/its-the-tests-zitbrains/

    Read them all. Also, read Steven Sawchuk’s great piece: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/05/08/30entry_ep.h32.html?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=mrss

  2. MrPABruno says:

    I think it’s notable that alt-cert programs seem to have more racial diversity.

    http://www.paul-bruno.com/why-are-some-credentialing-programs-more-racially-diverse-than-others/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

School response to accountability pressure: real or just gaming the numbers

What happens when schools face outside pressure to improve? Do they make real changes or do they just game the system to look better? Ceci Rouse, Jane Hannaway, Dan Goldhaber, and David Figlio show that schools really do change their ways.

Rouse et. al. sent surveys to every Florida elementary school for a number of years which let them track the details of what went on inside the schools. During this period, Florida implemented its “letter grade” system for grading every school on an A-F scale. Schools flunking with an F were publicly embarrassed, given some help to improve, and faced the threat of vouchers to let parents send their kids elsewhere.

Did schools game the system? Yup. For example some schools concentrated resources on just those students likely to improve enough to help the school over the threshold to a better letter grade.

But the authors find that the F-schools also made real changes. Here are some of the changes that F-schools made

  • Put in policies to help low-performing students
  • Lengthened instructional time
  • Changed scheduling systems
  • Put in policies to help low-performing teachers
  • Gave teachers more resources

Not all these changes were large. And the fact that schools made changes doesn’t necessarily mean the changes were successful. But it’s good to know that the responses were real.

Share
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

One Response to School response to accountability pressure: real or just gaming the numbers

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Turn arounds: Is it changing who teaches or how well they teach?

Michael Hansen has taken a look at “turn around” schools in North Carolina and Florida, compared them to other “chronically low performing” schools in those states, and decomposed the improvement in the turn around schools into three factors:

  1. Better performance from the teachers who remain in the school through the turnaround.
  2. Moving in high performing teachers.
  3. Moving out low performing teachers.

Turns out (1) matters a lot; (2) matters a bit; and (3) matters very little.

There has, I think, been too much attention given to firing really crummy teachers. Yes, we should do that. But there aren’t that many really crummy teachers. Our energy ought to be saved for boosting the vast portion of the teacher corps that is not crummy at all. And Hansen’s results suggest that’s just what happened in schools that underwent successful turnarounds.

 

Share
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 2 Comments

2 Responses to Turn arounds: Is it changing who teaches or how well they teach?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Market research and teacher salaries

We’d get a lot more of the great teachers we need if we paid ‘em better. If I’d substituted any other career for “teacher,” this would be a completely uncontroversial statement. (Okay, maybe teachers and clergy are thought of similarly.) For those attached to the potential-teachers-don’t-care-about-money fantasy, I’ve come across an interesting piece of evidence.

The non-profit arm of uber-consulting firm McKinsey & Company conducted a market research survey in which they asked people in the top third of college graduates the following kind of question: If we raised starting salaries would you decide to become a teacher; if the school working environment were better would you become a teacher? The answers showed that compensation matters a lot.

McKinsey marketSo a really big increase in both starting salary and maximum salary would increase the fraction of top-third students going into teaching by more than half.

The first conclusion from this study is that potential teachers do say that money matters.

But I want to go a little further. If you look at the table it looks like the magnitude of the salary increase needed to draw enough of the top-third of graduates into the profession is too high to be achievable. But the little “note” McKinsey included at the bottom is a reminder that the questions asked about salary changes holding constant other changes. If teaching salaries were higher, then the prestige of teaching would be higher…and the working conditions would be better…etc. So there’s a “multiplier effect” of higher salaries.

So the McKinsey study is good evidence, not conclusive but good evidence, that higher salaries would go a long way toward attracting a lot more of the best and the brightest into teaching.

Share
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 2 Comments

2 Responses to Market research and teacher salaries

  1. Secondary teachers already come from the top half of the population, so it’s not all that big a jump from top half to top third. And why anyone would want the top third of our college graduates to be elementary school teachers, telling Johnny to stop picking his nose, is beyond me.

    Teachers are paid perfectly well for the job. They don’t need much more money. And we certainly don’t want too many more of the best and the brightest teaching third grade.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>