Such attacks reflect a consistent strategy by opponents of education reform to scale back change in various jurisdictions. The strategy involves selectively choosing data and using inaccurate assertions to reach flawed conclusions to support the narrative that change not only fails to produce positive results, but has actually harmed students.

Usually these criticisms and attacks are heavy on rhetoric and personality-centric, while avoiding substantive discussions of which kinds of policies are better for kids and why, as well as whether reforms being implemented have created more high-quality schools and improved student outcomes.

That’s a shame.

In New York City, the record is strong. Student achievement and graduation rates are up. The city has some of the most successful, vibrant and innovative public charter schools in the country.

Under the leadership of Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former chancellor Joel Klein, the city’s school system was widely recognized as a leader in both policy and practice.

Chancellor Klein established a culture of excellence and high standards, and Chancellor Walcott has continued that focus.

The recent news that 50,000 New York City students are on waitlists for public charter schools demonstrates that families are choosing the new schools in droves. These numbers make a compelling case for continuing – even accelerating – the momentum started under Mayor Bloomberg and providing parents access to additional high-quality public school choice options.

There is still much work to be done – but there is no doubt the city’s education system is on a better path because of the leadership of the past decade.

Students and families in New York City – and everywhere – deserve a real debate on the issues. They deserve leaders who are going to stand up and lead, even when that means standing up to establishment interests who want nothing more than to turn back the clock and return power to adults and the bureaucracy.

Furthermore, if opponents of progressive policy change want to argue that their preferred policies, like devaluing student learning in teacher evaluations and limiting charter growth, are better for students, they should do just that – show the evidence that status quo policies are working.

Let’s see the studies supporting the assertion that seniority-driven personnel policies help ensure all students have the very best teachers possible in their classrooms. Further, there should be some teacher survey data out there showing that great teachers are fine receiving little feedback, reward, or professional development based on their performance and impact on students, right?

Show us that it’s not necessary to create additional options for families because existing schools can provide enough high-quality seats to ensure every child has access to excellent educational opportunities.

Demonstrate that when it comes to making hard decisions, local school boards are more than capable of moving swiftly to restructure and reform broken school systems.

The truth is, if opponents could make these arguments, they would.

New York City residents should take note – there’s a lot at stake in this year’s mayoral election. The debate about schools should be about how to build on the success already accomplished and how to accelerate reforms even more.

Instead, the primary strategy for taking back the change that has led to student progress seems to be convincing voters that the progress didn’t actually happen.

New Yorkers know better.

When the people of California offer thousands of emails, hundreds of hand-written letters and phone calls, and dozens of meetings with legislators under the big white dome of the California Capitol building, their voices should be heard.

In early April, Senator Ron Calderon (D-Montebello) introduced a modest teacher evaluation bill. SB 441 sought to make teacher evaluation more meaningful, more regular, and include parent input. A host of community, education, and civil rights groups stood in support of this legislation, including StudentsFirst.

StudentsFirst members from up and down California raised their voices on what they believed was a small step in the right direction. They filled out  committee hearing rooms at the Capitol two weeks in a row. Parents, teachers, students, and faith leaders shared compelling testimony bringing tears to more than a few eyes. A parent from the San Fernando Valley explained that the lack of great teachers in their communities often drives students out of the classroom and into gangs. A pastor from South Central Los Angeles said his church’s assistance services just weren’t enough for ex-convicts—a high-quality education is the one thing they need. Teacher after teacher expressed that the current system is broken and that their colleagues across the state want real, meaningful feedback.

For four high school students from San Diego, the outcome was nothing like what they had learned about in government class. More than 150 people testified in support of SB 441 while just a few union lobbyists opposed the bill. Both weeks, several of the senators were not even present to hear testimony on the bill—they just took a walk. After a tied vote in the first hearing, the bill got one more chance in a second hearing. Unfortunately only three senators voted yes while the other six senators sat quietly in their seats, declining to cast a vote on the measure. They just remained silent. 

Being my first experience in the Capital and lobbying for a bill, I can definitely say that my outlook going in was definitely different than my outlook coming out  I still have hope that we can and will make a difference.  Our approach must be from the inside out, voting for legislators that have the same objectives and then supporting them, making change through local teachers unions and waking up every day knowing that California cannot continue on the path that has been set.

--Lesli Kraut, parent advocate

In spite of the loss, the presence of the community calling for change was inspiring. The parents, teachers, students, faith leaders, and community members who mobilized around this bill shared passionate testimony. They spoke from the heart. They took time out of their lives to travel to Sacramento and contact their legislators to share why they believe we need great teachers in every classroom. Most put it simply: our kids can't wait.

This is the power of a movement. Before we give up on democracy, we must remember that every civil rights campaign is long and arduous. So while we may have lost this fight, the battle is far from over. 

Our members won’t back down. They refuse to lose hope. We will need more and more voices to make the cry for educational equity ring in the ears of politicians and policy makers across California. We hope you will join us as we get even louder.

Watch the inside story of SB 441 in the video below. 

Last month, the Aspen Institute and Parthenon Group released a report arguing that the success of evaluation reforms depends on the school districts’ willingness to establish a culture committed to continuous improvement and two-way feedback.

One way to establish this culture is through teacher surveys.

Looking to best practices in both school districts and high-performing private companies, the report recommends several key components of a successful survey effort. Here’s a look at some of them:

• Engaging key stakeholders in authentic opportunities to weigh in.
  Teacher surveys present an opportunity to engage and collaborate district wide. Leaders must sincerely be open to and ready to utilize the feedback they receive. This also is an opportunity to strategically engage key stakeholders. If school leaders, for example, want to retain a particular group of teachers (i.e. their high performers), they should consult them for their specific input.
   
• Carefully crafting survey questions.
  Survey questions send clear messages to respondents about values and priorities, so they must be chosen carefully. Additionally, leaders must ensure that the questions ask for actionable feedback (rather than fluff) so respondents take the survey seriously.
   
• Informing key stakeholders about survey results, next steps, and follow through.
  Survey results must be shared with stakeholders in a way that is relevant to their work. For example, the survey information a principal is interested in will vary from what a teacher or superintendent wants to know - ensuring accessibility to this nuanced information is key. Additionally, survey information must result in action – survey participants want to know that their feedback is meaningful and leads to actual change.

Lately, we’ve talked a lot about the importance of teachers and increasing teacher quality. And while I don’t believe teacher surveys will necessarily be a linchpin for successful evaluation systems, it’s an important component that shouldn’t be overlooked.

Any effort school leaders can take to authentically and strategically engage their teachers must be considered, as more and more states embark on the critical - and highly scrutinized - work of implementing teacher evaluations.

To read more about how districts and states can build comprehensive performance-based evaluations, see our brief, “Elevating the Teaching Profession: Increasing Teacher Quality.”

This week StudentsFirst released its teacher quality brief “Increasing Teacher Quality: A Comprehensive Approach,” that makes the case for state leaders to pass a set of comprehensive policies to elevate the teaching profession.

Today we hear a California teacher’s perspective.

I’ve been a teacher for 9 years and I had to go through being laid off for 8 of those years.

Despite receiving the Teacher of the Year Golden Apple Award and making incredible achievement gains with my students, I would get laid off at the end of every year because of a law called “Last In First Out,” or LIFO. This law requires layoff decisions to be based solely on a teacher’s hiring date, rather than how well they teach.  

In my 9 years of teaching, I have worked alongside teachers who go above and beyond to ensure the success of their students. For these teachers, it doesn’t matter how many hours it takes, or how many supplies they have to purchase – they are committed to delivering an effective and engaging lesson everyday.

What bothers me about my profession is that we operate under the notion that all teachers are the same. We believe that they are all effective, they are all impacting kids positively, and they all work to ensure students learn.

While I’ve worked alongside phenomenal educators, both veteran and novice, I’ve also worked alongside ineffective educators, both veteran and novice.

And it breaks my heart to see highly effective teachers receive the same “satisfactory” rating on their evaluations as those that clearly need significant and immediate assistance to improve.

In California, and many other states across the country, teacher evaluation systems do not allow teachers who are helping their students excel in the classroom to be distinguished from the teacher who is in need of support, or the teacher who should not be in the classroom at all.

This hurts our kids and devalues our best teachers.  

We need an evaluation system that provides quality feedback to teachers and uses that feedback to individualize support. Only then will we be able to identify our highly effective teachers and use them as support for teachers who need improvement.

But teacher evaluation systems are not the only thing that needs improvement.

Issues like LIFO, tenure, forced placement, compensation, and other teacher-related policies need to be addressed in ways that elevate the profession and prioritize putting the best teachers in front of all of our children.

From a teacher’s perspective, nothing matters more.  

While Teacher Appreciation Week is a great opportunity to show thanks to educators who shape our lives and the lives of future generations, most would agree that one week out of the year is not enough.

Real gratitude for the difficult work teachers perform comes through showing thanks every day. An integral part of expressing sincere thanks to educators is ensuring they teach in systems and schools that recognize, support, and value their work.

Over the past five years, there has been a flurry of policy reform happening in state houses across the country – much of it centered on increasing the effectiveness of the teaching corps.

StudentsFirst agrees with educators, advocacy groups, and experts that there’s no silver bullet that will fix our education system; that being said, StudentsFirst also believes that elevating the teaching profession is one of the most critical steps states can take in improving their schools.

When states take on this task, they must do so in a comprehensive way, changing laws and policies so that all schools are recruiting, developing, and retaining great teachers.

To build and develop a quality teaching corps, we need a broad, systemic approach that looks to improving the way teachers are recognized, retained, and rewarded. In doing so, effective educators will be able to view teaching as a sustainable career they can invest in for the long haul.

“Increasing Teacher Quality: A Comprehensive Approach” examines the policies that shape the system teachers work in once they enter the classroom, while highlighting the need for a wide-sweeping shift in policy.

As we’ve seen, building a system that recognizes teacher performance is about much more than just about improving teacher evaluations.

Being comprehensive in our approach to policy reform can better our chances of building the right systems to value and develop great educators, which is exactly what our states and our country needs.

Now is the time. Let’s get it right.

Here are quotes from teachers, highlighted in the brief, that describe how our current education policies fall short of giving teachers the appreciation they deserve.

Status quo evaluations

"While I receive great feedback about my teaching from my principal, it's frustrating as someone who cares about this profession to know that is not the case for my colleagues in other schools. All teachers need differentiated, frequent evaluations that celebrate our successes and clearly highlight priorities for professional development, so that we can achieve the level of greatness in the classroom that our students deserve."

-Laura Welsh, Teacher, San Jose, CA 

“Last in, First out”

"I was laid off due to 'last in, first out' practices during my first year teaching in NV, after teaching for 7 years in FL. Putting a 'number stamp' on my head makes me feel that my expertise and skills are invalid and unimportant.  As a professional, it seems like commonsense to hire and fire according to effectiveness. And as a parent, I know I want effective teachers for my kids, above all other criteria." 

-Christine Simo, Teacher, Las Vegas, NV

Forced placement

"I've been shifted from site to site in my 9 years of teaching due to seniority, and every time I have left a site, a teacher who is known throughout the district as being ineffective has taken my spot. Parents, students, and our community should be outraged at this kind of policy; it puts seniority on a pedestal and as a result, my performance and my students, in a back seat."

-Bhavini Bhakta, Teacher, Los Angeles, CA

Tenure reform

"My district is vigilant in addressing ineffective teachers, whether tenured or not.  However, when teachers are tenured, the process is more lengthy and involved.  While safeguards are important for teachers, when the process becomes so time-consuming and overly cumbersome to address ineffective teachers, there is a real problem.  Ultimately, the one who matters the most - the student - is left behind." 

-Michelle Humphrey, Administrator, Minneapolis, MN

Without warning and without reason, I lost my job. I… LOST… MY JOB! Since the age of 17 I had not been without a job. So needless to say, I was devastated. After the dust settled, I had a conversation that changed my life.

My mother called. And like any other conversation, she first wanted to make sure I was ok. I wasn’t. She continued by saying she had something she wanted me to hear. She had found an essay (or something of the sort) that I had written in third grade. Third grade! I couldn’t believe she still had it! In this essay, I state that my goal is not just to be a teacher but an AMAZING teacher and how by doing so I would change the world. After listening to my mother read my essay, she simply said “Do what you were meant to do.” I remembered why I wanted to be a teacher… an AMAZING teacher.

I teach because I want to change the world. I have a responsibility to not only my community but to my country, to mold productive, conscientious and active citizens. In turn, I want them to know their responsibility to their community and be examples for others to follow.

I teach because I want my students to believe, to know, that despite their challenges, be it environmental, emotional, or academic, that they can and will accomplish great things. I know that they have endless potential and I teach them that they would be doing themselves and the world a great disservice by not living up to that potential.

I teach because my students deserve a teacher that will not make excuses for them. Feeling sorry for yourself because of where you come from, what conditions you live in and/or how hard life has been during your short life is no excuse to give away one of your greatest possessions- your education.

I teach because I’m a lifelong learner. And who better to teach me than my students! They see the world with a fresh perspective and with great insight (like why I should be nice to people and why brothers are better than sisters). They constantly remind me of what’s important and that anything outside of that can wait.

I teach because, selfishly, I believe that one day, in some capacity, my students are going to be great teachers and I’d like to say I had a hand in their greatness. I’d like to be their AMAZING teacher.
 

In preparation for this week, I spent a lot of time reflecting on what made me feel appreciated as a second grade teacher and discussing ideas with the teachers I now work with around the country.  As I remembered my time in the classroom, one particular experience stood out to me.

As a teacher I quickly realized the extraordinary effort it takes to teach. During those years, I was usually physically and emotionally drained. On my birthday, during my first year of teaching, I received a note from an incredible little seven-year-old named Erin.

It said, “Happy 24^th Birthday, I know it’s [hard] to say how you feel but I’m here.” I was moved with emotion. I was embarrassed that she could tell things were tough, but mostly I was touched by her sentiment. Erin was a classroom leader in every sense; she was bright and kind and well respected by her second grade classmates.  Her note demonstrated wisdom beyond her years. I revisited that note several times through the coming weeks and struggles. It was an important reminder to me that I had to deliver my best every day because these kids were precious and smart.

Leading up to this week I reached out to a wide-array of teachers and asked them what makes them feel most appreciated. They overwhelmingly responded with “personal notes of thanks” as well, which is why we’ve given our members the opportunity to share their thank you notes this week with teachers who have inspired them.

Teachers, this week is all about you. And while it might seem far removed from the day-to-day challenges you face, we promise that this week and beyond we’ll continue working relentlessly and urgently to elevate the teaching profession to match the value of what’s at stake here - the enormous potential of our kids.

Thank you for your hard work each and every day to make that potential a reality. 

The early years in a teacher’s career have a significant impact on how successful he or she will be as a teacher in the future, according to a recent study and a growing body of research. And there are actually big differences in the way that beginning teachers perform.

So instead of leaving these first years in the classroom as a time for teachers to “figure it out” on their own, as many districts do, district and school leaders should invest in evaluating and developing their teachers during this period.

TNTP’s recent study, Leap Year, takes an in-depth look at how it began to invest strategically in new teachers. In its own teacher preparation program, TNTP uses multiple measures - including student surveys, principal ratings, classroom observation, and student growth data - to assess about 1,000 new teachers in the TNTP Academy.

Based on its findings about these new teachers, TNTP makes salient recommendations for district and school leaders interested in strengthening their teaching corps:

1. Focus new teachers on core skills, and look for rapid growth.
    
2. Connect teacher certification with on-the-job performance to evaluate teacher certification programs.
    
3. Use classroom observations and student surveys to evaluate teachers when value-added data are unavailable.

The importance of investing in first year teachers cannot be overstated – strategically developing these new teachers is a foundational step to building a long-term strategy of increasing teacher effectiveness.

The study also finds that while new teachers perform at very different levels and develop at different rates, the common characteristics in high-performing first year teachers were their responsiveness to feedback and focus on student learning. These teachers started strong and rapidly improved, using feedback from their evaluations to tailor their instruction to meet their students’ needs.

This study bolsters the argument for a strong, multidimensional evaluation system that can recognize high performing teachers early on so that every effort is made to retain them. Similarly, when these types of evaluation systems are in place, all teachers receive targeted feedback along with the necessary tools to develop and improve - something critical for new teachers in their early years. 

If you’re interested in this blog, check out past thinkED blog posts from Nithya Joseph and StudentsFirst Policy publications, like the “Great Teachers for Every Child: A Matter of Social Justice” policy brief.

On April 26, 1983, A Nation At Risk: The Imperative for Education Reform branded America's educational institutions as dangerously mediocre: “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today,” the report bellowed, “we might well have viewed it as an act of war.” It's been 30 years since A Nation at Risk. Is America still at risk? Where have we improved as a nation? Where have we fallen short? And what will our educational institutions look like 30 years from now?

These are the questions that the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and the American Enterprise Institute seek to answer in the joint video retrospective: “‘A Nation at Risk’: 30 Years Later,” featuring commentary from Lamar Alexander, William J. Bennett, Arne Duncan, David Driscoll, Chester E. Finn, Jr., Milton Goldberg, Frederick M. Hess, Michael J. Petrilli, Diane Ravitch, Michelle Rhee, Andrew Rotherham, and Margaret Spellings.

Indiana reaffirmed its status as a leader in education policy reform by passing legislation that requires the creation of a rating system for teacher preparation programs based on how well their graduates are prepared for the classroom.

The ratings will be partly determined by the results from Indiana’s teacher evaluations, which include a teacher’s impact on student academic growth. This means that teacher preparation programs with higher rankings have graduated teachers that are earning high marks on their evaluations and raising student achievement in the classroom.

StudentsFirst Indiana collaborated with forward-thinking Indiana State Senator Jim Banks (R-Columbia City) (@Jim_Banks) on this bill, which sets the Hoosier state as a pioneer in the movement to improve teacher preparation programs.

This bill takes multiple approaches on program accountability through multiple data points. For the first time, all teacher preparation programs must report the attrition, retention, and completion rates of teaching candidates during the program. Additionally, they must report the percentage of individuals who complete the program and go on to find full or part-time teaching positions.

Using this new data, the Indiana Department of Education and the State Board of Education will develop a publicly accessible rating system for its teacher preparation programs.

This helps potential teachers find high caliber programs, as well as assists districts in determining from which preparation programs to recruit new hires.

The bill also spearheads the creation of a Commission on Education Study Committee, which will look for additional methods for evaluating teacher preparation programs. These measures will include linking the results of a teacher’s evaluation back to the preparation program upon graduation, classroom placement, and more. 

“By creating this framework, we put Indiana in the driver's seat for teacher preparation transparency and accountability. Doing so keeps Indiana on the forefront of education reform.”

-State Senator Jim Banks

Indiana is not the only state going down this path, and we hope other states follow the lead.

Taking the first step towards ensuring teacher preparation programs are held accountable for the effectiveness of their graduates, and thus the effectiveness of every incoming teacher in classrooms across the state is an important component of comprehensive efforts to improve teacher quality.

When teachers get the best preparation and schools are able to find the best-prepared teachers: students win.

Before entering the classroom, I spent 4 years working as an attorney in the White House, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Senate. While working on education and disability policy in the Senate, I learned about our country’s educational crisis and I wanted to do something about it. I was tired of sitting behind a desk; I wanted to get out and have an impact on the ground.

As luck would have it, in 2010, the principal of a law-focused charter high school in Sacramento reached out to me. His school, Natomas Pacific Pathways Prep High School, was trying to recruit an attorney to teach constitutional law, economics, and civil law, but had not been successful in finding a credentialed teacher. I had always considered teaching, but never thought there was a streamlined process for getting into the classroom without going back to school full-time.

As it turned out, the Fortune School of Education offered an alternative teacher certification program that allowed me to teach while getting my credential part time. After being accepted to Fortune, I was enrolled in an internship program that started the summer after my first year of teaching. By the time I started the internship, I was able to understand the content of my credentialing classes in a rich and substantive way because I had spent the entire previous year in the classroom. While other interns had to dream up hypothetical lesson plans and classroom procedures, I was able to reflect back on my experience as a teacher, which was invaluable.

My professional experience as an attorney has helped me immensely in the classroom.  Having held high-level professional positions, I have a wealth of real-life stories and experiences that I use to make academic content come to life for the students in my class.

Now, after two short years of teaching, I am humbled by my students’ successes. Graduated seniors from last year constantly stop by my classroom or send me emails telling me that their college level economics classes feel like review after a year in my classroom. Outside of the classroom, I coach our school’s mock trial team - we ended this year ranked 4^th out of 22 teams in the region, and received an award for best team sportsmanship.

I’m proud of my work in the classroom, and I look forward to continuing to grow as a teacher – this is the most rewarding work I’ve ever done.

Jake Shuler teaches economics and Constitutional law at Natomas Pacific Pathways Prep High School (NP3) in California. Check out the StudentsFirst policy brief, "Creating Multiple Pathways: Alternative Certification for Teachers".

Each day this week, we are posting on the topic of alternative teacher certification to highlight today’s release of our brief.

Do you know someone who has become a teacher through a program like Teach for America (TFA) or Troops to Teachers? These are just two examples of the many alternative certification programs that allow people to become teachers without having a formal degree in education.

Most teachers today still entered through the traditional track (earning a bachelor’s or master’s degree in education), but more and more are beginning to enter the profession though alternative routes. In fact, 15 percent of teachers now enter classrooms through alternative routes.

Alternative certification programs allow states and districts to expand their existing teacher talent pools and place high-caliber teachers with unique skills and experiences in schools.

States do this by opening new pathways for people of diverse backgrounds, like professionals who may already be experts in certain subjects, to enter the teaching profession without having to go back to school and earn a degree in education.

Studies have shown that quality alternative certification programs can:

• Diversify the teaching profession by increasing the number of male and minority teachers; and
   
• Produce teachers who are often more willing to teach in urban or rural, high-needs schools and to teach subjects that are typically hard to staff through traditional programs; and
   
• Have great impacts on student growth: A recent study in Texas showed that students with teachers either currently serving in TFA or working as alumni showed higher rates of academic growth than their peers in a classroom with a non-TFA instructor.

Given these facts, it’s clear that strong alternative pathways can and should play an important role in elevating the teaching profession.

Unfortunately, only five states – Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Michigan, Minnesota, and Rhode Island – provide models for states to follow in establishing high-quality alternative pathways for teachers.

Many other states have policy barriers in place that prevent people from entering the teaching profession through non-traditional paths. It is important for these states to remove policy barriers to the classroom so that alternative certification programs can attract and train a diverse group of teachers to be successful in raising student growth.   

Ultimately, what matters most is putting an effective teacher in front of every child, a teacher who challenges and inspires each student to achieve. Quality alternative certification programs help do just that by training a wide range of talented individuals to enter the classroom with the skills they need to teach, and teach well.   

To learn more about what a high-quality alternative certification program looks like and how states should hold them accountable for producing effective educators check out our new brief, "Creating Multiple Pathways: Alternative Certification for Teachers".

Alternative certification routes are critical to ensure the best teaching candidates make it into the classroom.

This week we are posting blogs on the topic of alternative certification to highlight the release of our alternative certification brief. Many teachers take traditional routes into the classroom through schools of higher education, which offer a degree in education with accompanying certification and full licensure. In contrast, alternative certification routes allow nontraditional candidates the opportunity to teach immediately in the classroom after meeting certain requirements, whether under a full state license or provisional license. Alternative certification routes are critical to ensure the best teaching candidates make it into the classroom.

The following post is an excerpt from the brief, which will be released tomorrow. StudentsFirst Teacher Fellow Michelle Humphrey was alternatively certified and she tells her story here:

In 1998, I graduated from the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee with a double major in social work and sociology. After graduating, I moved to Minneapolis and began my social work career at YouthLink as a truancy case manager.  I stayed in that position for a few years before advancing to Program Supervisor for the homeless youth drop-in center. It was during my time in that role that I decided to go back to school and obtain my Masters in Social Work, from the University of Minnesota.

Soon after graduation, I worked with the Minneapolis NAACP as a Community Relations Consultant and helped to develop and implement the NAACP youth council.   While I loved this, I wanted to do something different to help our youth become more self-sufficient and productive members of society. It was at that time that I applied and was accepted to the New York City Teaching Fellows program as a Special Education Teacher. In July of 2004, I moved to Brooklyn and began the program, simultaneously earning my second Masters in Elementary Education and working full-time as a Special Education Teacher in a self-contained K-2 classroom at P.S. 226 in Brooklyn, NY. I graduated from the City University of New York, College of Staten Island, in August of 2007, with a 3.7 GPA and teaching licenses for Elementary K-6 and Special Education K-6.

For my first two years of teaching, I taught in a K-2 special education class.  During my two years teaching that class, three of my twelve students transitioned to a general education classes because they were able to keep up with their mainstream peers.  Also, one student with cerebral palsy (and the most infectious laugh) increased his reading abilities by two grade levels in his first year with me. I was able to help my students succeed because I created engaging, appropriate educational lessons that met the needs of each of my students.

During my third year at P.S. 226, I taught 1^st grade in a Collaborative Team Teaching Setting.  At the end of the year, my co-teacher and I were able to promote five general education students to participate in the accelerated curriculum for more advanced students the following year.  Additionally, 100% of our special education students met and surpassed their individual education goals and objectives. 

Without the alternative certification program, I never would have been able to impact these students’ and their families’ lives – but equally as important, they never would have had the chance to impact my life as well.  Because of my experiences with the New York City Teaching Fellows program and the students I was able to teach, my life’s mission has forever been changed by my kids at P.S. 226.

“During her time at P.S. 226, in New York City, Michelle Humphrey worked in both a self-contained setting and an integrated co-teaching (ICT) setting. Her engaging lessons enabled her differently able students to make progress and helped to close their achievement gap. Ms. Humphrey’s unique ability to find her students multiple entry points made it possible for each student to have access to the curriculum and standard setting work. As a result, she raised the self-esteem of her students and pushed them to accomplish far more tasks then they ever thought they could.”  Joanne Allotta, Assistant Principal at P.S. 226

“I had the pleasure of working in a collaborative team teaching classroom with Michelle Humphrey, during my first year as a classroom teacher.  Michelle, as my mentor, helped mold me into the teacher I am and taught me how a true collaboration and careful planning can have a positive impact on the students.” Blair Kaplan, Teacher at P.S. 226

Student surveys are ubiquitous in higher education as a means of evaluating teaching. (In fact, they are often the only source of feedback on classroom instruction for college professors.) But, until recently, they were quite rare in K-12 education. As state and district leaders redesign their teacher evaluation systems, they should consider adding student surveys to the set of measures included in teacher evaluation systems.  As we learned in the Gates Foundation’s Measures of Effective Teaching project, student surveys have a number of advantages:

1. Relationship to student achievement gains: We tested the predictive power of student surveys by comparing a teacher’s score on the Tripod Survey (developed by Ron Ferguson at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government) to their effectiveness in raising test scores with a different group of students or in a different academic year.  After adjusting for measurement error, the correlation was between 0.3 and 0.4 in mathematics and 0.1 and 0.3 in English Language Arts. In other words, the teachers who scored higher on the student surveys saw higher achievement gains.
    
2. Reliability: The student surveys were the most reliable of the measures we tested (that is, least volatile from year to year), especially in middle school. The reliability of student surveys derives from the power of averaging.  Even if an adult is a more discerning evaluator of a teacher’s practice than the typical elementary or middle school student, classroom observations typically average over one or two observers.  However, the typical elementary classroom has roughly 20 students and the typical middle school teacher works with 75 to 100 students, spread across multiple sections.  In addition, rather than averaging over 2 or 3 lessons, students are present for 180 days.
    
3. Improving Practice: Although student achievement gains or “value-added” measures provide predictive power (that is, they help identify teachers likely to see similar student achievement gains with future students), they offer little diagnostic power for identifying specific aspects of a teacher’s practice which deserve attention. In contrast, student surveys, like formal classroom observations, offer the chance to identify areas where a teacher could improve. The power of student surveys and formal classroom observations to drive changes in practice could be enhanced by aligning the language of the surveys with the language of the teaching standards.
    
4. Cost and Coverage: Relative to the cost of observations by trained adults, or the cost of adding new assessments in untested grades and subjects, student surveys are a relatively low-cost way of providing additional sources of data for individual teachers. In the MET study, the youngest students we surveyed were in fourth grade and the oldest were in 10th grade. In these grades, the student surveys could be used to provide additional coverage in subjects such as social science, science, history, art, etc. where student assessments are often available. Future work should investigate the predictive validity and reliability of student surveys in younger grades.
    
5. Emotional Salience:  One of the potential strengths of student surveys is that they are measured in a currency that teachers inherently value— the perspective of students. A merit pay system attaches financial incentives to other measures—such as classroom observations or student achievement gain measures— to artificially attach value to those measures. However, to the extent that teachers inherently value what their students have to say, and care about whether their students rank them relative to their peers in responding to statements such as “We use time well and we don’t waste time” or “When I turn in homework, I get useful feedback which helps me improve,” then it may not be necessary to attach financial incentives to provoke the desired responses from teachers.               

There are only a few places to look for independent sources of feedback on a teacher’s practice. Student achievement gains or “value-added” measures are valuable when they are available, but less than a quarter of teachers work in tested grades and subjects. Classroom observations by principals are another source, but it is costly to add observations by other observers from outside the school. Student surveys are a natural place to turn for an additional source of feedback for teachers. Outside the tested grades and subjects, student surveys may be the only source besides the teacher’s principal. As such, student surveys would be a valuable source for balancing or confirming those judgments.

Of course, we must be mindful that attaching high stakes for teachers to information from student surveys may introduce pressures to distort those measures. After all, some college professors have been known to chase higher student evaluation scores by being easy graders. One of the best ways to reduce this tendency is to use multiple sources of information, and not just one metric, for making important decisions about teachers. Meanwhile, through the MET project, we’ve learned what types of relationships to expect between student survey measures, student achievement gains and observations. States and districts should monitor the relationships among the various measures. If students or teachers begin abusing the student surveys (or another one of the measures), an early warning sign would be the breakdown of those relationships.

The following relevant reports can be found at www.metproject.org:

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Learning about Teaching: Research Report (Seattle, WA: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010)

Thomas J. Kane and Douglas O. Staiger, Gathering Feedback for Teaching: Research Paper (Seattle, WA: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2012)

Thomas J. Kane, Daniel F. McCaffrey, Trey Miller, Douglas O. Staiger, Have We Identified Effective Teachers?: Validating Measures of Effective Teaching Using Random Assignment (Seattle, WA: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2013)

Kata Mihaly, Daniel F. McCaffrey, Douglas O. Staiger and J.R. Lockwood, “A Composite Estimator of Effective Teaching” RAND Working Paper, January 8, 2013.

Thomas Kane is Nonresident Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, Brown Center on Education Policy. He is professor of education and economics at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and faculty director of the Center for Education Policy Research, a university-wide research center that partners with states and districts to evaluate innovative policies.   He was deputy director in the education group at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, where he directed the Measures of Effective Teaching project.

We’re also open to criticism of our arguments. Only by doing so can we have the substantive discussions our students deserve. So we read Matt DiCarlo’s critique of our work over at the Shanker Blog this week with interest, and found that we agreed, not only with several of his points, but also with his overall argument; when engaging in policy debate, semantics matter.

Our recent “Myths vs. Facts” document, which attempted to address what we believe are misleading arguments against new teacher evaluations by labeling those arguments as “myths” and presenting our arguments regarding what teacher evaluations can achieve as “fact,” was the wrong approach.

For example, in our discussion regarding the issue of year-to-year fluctuation of value-added measures, DiCarlo rightly points out that this isn’t a myth, but rather a legitimate and serious concern with value-added estimates. As regular readers of the Shanker Blog no doubt know, no value-added model is perfect.

Actually the particular ‘myth’ on which we were focused is one that DiCarlo himself answers:  the fact “that value-added estimates are not particularly stable over time doesn’t preclude their usefulness.”  We believe there is strong evidence that value-added measures add to the overall reliability of an evaluation framework, and are predictors of positive outcomes in adulthood.

In short, when used with multiple years of data and combined and balanced by other measures of instructional practice as part of a comprehensive model, we believe value-added data can strengthen teacher evaluations. That was the point we intended to make.

For many, a quality education is one of the perks that come with a middle class lifestyle, leading to future economic success and stability. However, times have changed and according to a new study, a large percentage of America’s middle class students are not keeping up with their international peers.

If our nation wants to remain competitive in the 21^st century, middle class schools must also be improved.   

Policy discussions on how to close the achievement gap and ensure that low-income students are receiving access to a high quality education often dominate the education reform dialogue, especially when it comes to improving America’s global competitiveness. 

However, after reviewing the 2009 math and science results on the internationally benchmarked Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) exam, America Achieves found that while leading countries like Singapore, Finland, Korea, and Germany have:

• Raised academic standards,
   
• Elevated the teaching profession, and
   
• Lifted their overall performance,

 America’s middle class students have not kept up.

This study shows that when students in each country are divided into four groups based on socioeconomic status:

• U.S. students in the second highest socioeconomic group are being significantly outperformed by their peers in 24 countries in math and 15 countries in science; and
   
• U.S. students in the third highest socioeconomic group are being significantly outperformed by their peers in 31 countries or regions in math and 25 in science.

But that’s not all. 

“America’s middle class students are falling behind not only students of comparable advantage but also more disadvantaged students in several other countries.”

The good news is that the same study also highlights specific schools that are serving middle class students well. In fact, 4 schools serving middle class students are literally outperforming schools in every country in the world in subjects ranging from reading, math, and science.

These schools serve as models, proving that some middle class American students can, and do compete internationally. Yet ‘some’ is not good enough. Every student in our nation, regardless of household income, deserves access to a high-quality education that prepares him or her for future success.

But what about students from low-income households?  

North Star Academy in Newark, New Jersey, serves students from predominantly low-income households and is outperforming the average performance of 41 countries in reading, showing that when best practices are in place, low-income schools can be globally competitive too.

We know what works at home and abroad for middle class and low-income students – high-performing teachers who are supported and valued, data-driven schools with high expectations for all students, and healthy learning environments that engage and encourage students to reach their full potential.

It is time for all of America to incorporate, with urgency, the lessons learned from school successes and challenges around the globe, and to acknowledge that we can and must do better.

Every April, when the ivy is just beginning to show at Wrigley Field, lifelong Chicago Cubs fans, like myself, have a renewed hope that this is our year.  

Each of us believes that after more than 100 years, the Chicago Cubs will finally win the World Series again... But my sense of optimism is typically crushed when I consider the off-season activities of our competition. The Yankees picked up who? They are spending how much!? That’s not fair!

Yes, the New York Yankees may spend a record $230.4 million this season, but does that really mean anything? 

Despite outrageous spending, the New York Post admits that the Yankees are not even favored to win this season. They’ve spent more than any other team on player salaries over the last ten years, but have only won the World Series once during that time.

Last season’s World Series Champs, the San Francisco Giants are projected to spend a mere $142 million this year, perhaps $10 million more than they spent in 2012.  That’s not all that much more than the Cub’s $104 million this year.

In baseball, as in life, it would be foolish to suggest that money isn’t important.  Yes, the Yankees are always competitive. Yes, Major League Baseball should try to rectify the fact that teams like the Houston Astros are only spending $24 million this year.  But it’s also true that adding more expensive players to the payroll is no guarantee of success. How much a team spends is not as important as what they do on the field, using the players they’ve got.

This economic concept of spending efficiency also applies to school finances. In 2011, the Center for American Progress (CAP) did a great study that found many school districts are inefficient with their spending. For example, only 17 percent of Florida districts in the top third of spending were also in the top third of student achievement.

Many school districts could boost student achievement simply by using money more productively, according to CAP. But how can districts increase productivity?

State policies that incentivize innovation, require spending transparency, and give flexibility to schools and districts in how they spend their money are key, but great leadership is just as important.

A great leader can make a little bit of money go a long way. For example, under the leadership of general manager Billy Beane, the Oakland A’s only spent $55 million last year but still won the American League West. Made famous by the movie Moneyball, Beane is a leader who is willing to think differently about how to use his resources to get the best possible results.

School districts, like baseball teams, need the kind of leaders that can make a dollar go a long way. Only then will schools produce the kind of results that reflect the full potential of their students.     

What two people in every school have the greatest impact on a child’s education?

Teachers and principals.

Studies confirm that teacher and principal quality impact student learning more than anything else in a school, so it is critical that both teachers and principals are evaluated in a way that helps them improve and holds them accountable for what matters: student academic growth.

This is why I’m thrilled that Georgia has taken a strong step forward in ensuring that all of its students have a great teacher in the front of their classroom and a great principal running their school.

For too long, evaluations used by states and districts have done an incredible disservice to teachers, principals, and most importantly students, by providing teachers and principals with little to no relevant information to help them improve.

But just last week, in a bipartisan vote the Peach State passed HB 244, a teacher and principal evaluation bill, that recognizes Georgia’s educators for their impact on student learning and provides them with fair, objective, and meaningful evaluations.

This new evaluation system will recognize the state’s excellent teachers and principals and help provide guiding support for those who need it.

In addition to providing the state’s educators with a robust system of feedback, Georgia’s new evaluation program will benefit the state’s students by supporting and developing their teachers.

Studies have shown that a highly effective teacher can generate an estimated 50% more learning in a year than an average teacher, whereas an ineffective teacher can generate 50% less learning in a year than an average teacher.

Georgia’s evaluation bill provides much needed changes to the state’s previous evaluation system:

• The bill requires teacher evaluations to incorporate multiple measures of classroom effectiveness, such as classroom observations and student surveys, all focused on how a teacher impacts student learning.
   
• Student achievement will count towards half of the final evaluation score for both teachers and principals.
   
• Teachers and principals will be assigned one of four ratings that will identify them at varied levels of performance.
   
• Evaluations will be used as guidelines to provide high-quality professional development that is targeted to each educator’s areas of need.

By setting up a new evaluation system that can accurately reflect a teacher’s impact on student achievement, Georgia has prioritized what matters most in every classroom - student learning. 

As we commemorate Dr. King’s death, we also honor the man for his dream and example of leadership. And, we must apply his same passion and perseverance as we take on the civil rights battles of today.

For too long, policymakers have been doing things the wrong way in education, and our schools have been letting kids down. We’ve been denying too many children their civil right to a high-quality education. And, in doing so, we’ve been denying them and our community the opportunities Dr. King dedicated his life to. 

Education is the civil rights issue that this generation must overcome.

We know the power of education in overcoming historical and institutional barriers. Just as denying education was used as a shackle during slavery, securing our right to it was a hammer in overcoming Jim Crow. Unfortunately, many of our most vulnerable communities have been plagued with poor-performing schools that inhibit the growth and prosperity of our neighborhoods – and most importantly – that fail our children.

We are too great a nation to provide anything short of a great education for every child. But, sadly, even all these years after Brown v. Board of Education, we still have much work to do.

With this in mind, organizations like StudentsFirst and STAND UP are committed to advocating on behalf of various meaningful education reform policies that would help mend these social ills. Many of these measures empower parents, help identify great teachers, and ensure all children in every zip code have access to a quality education.

From slaves secretly learning to read by firelight looking toward freedom, to a little girl from Topeka pushing a Supreme Court toward justice, to college kids rolling past a governor on the schoolhouse steps toward equality, we have understood education is the key to pushing our community forward. 

As Dr. King said in his last sermon, “When people get caught up with that which is right and they are willing to sacrifice for it, there is no stopping point short of victory.”

This country must answer the call. Our generation must do our part by supporting education reform and pushing toward equal opportunity for all. 

Amidst the noise of the 24-hour news cycle, though, what most sticks in my mind as the former director of Indiana’s program is a blinking red light.  More specifically, the red light on my phone when I worked for the Indiana Department of Education.

The legislation passed in late April 2011.  A few weeks prior to passage, department leadership assigned me the task of implementing it.  This had nothing to do with counting chickens and everything to do with the draft legislation’s requirement to have the program ready for the 2011-2012 school year.

That blinking red light on my phone was the key.  It signaled that I had voicemail—typically quite a few—from parents, school administrators, department colleagues and various stakeholder groups.  The ability to separate the urgent from the important messages would be vital.

That light also scared the hell out of me.  Often the voicemails would require a return call to a parent whose child would not be eligible.  This was especially hard because I always had school choice—in the form of my dad’s checkbook.  The first evening I spent in Indiana was for a visit to my eventual alma mater, Notre Dame.  My parents could afford to send me there, and could afford tuition to the private high school that pushed me hard enough to get there in the first place.

Democracy is obviously a process.  Everyone does not get everything they want.  And yet there were days in 2011 where I walked out of the office feeling like I was playing God.  Returning calls to parents of eligible children was wonderful; breaking the news to parents of ineligible students was heart-wrenching.

Difficult as that was, I cannot even begin to grasp what it would be like to inform parents that a program to keep their child at a good school was being taken away. And I doubt that the plaintiffs who sued to block the program would have volunteered to help call all these parents had the Court struck it down.

Congratulations to former Governor Mitch Daniels, Governor Pence, (now-Florida) Superintendent Tony Bennett, Representative Bob Behning, and the Indiana General Assembly for their courage in facing the special interests and doing the right thing for children.  The day is now brighter knowing my successor will have more good news than bad when that red light is blinking.

Neil Ruddock is a State Advocacy Director for the Foundation for Excellence in Education. This blog post originally appeared on the EdFly Blog.

This hesitation can hurt our schools and our students.

For example, unless the students in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Iowa move to another state, they’ll never get the chance to attend a Rocketship charter school, a high-performing network of public charter schools that serve as a model for 21^st century schooling with proven results.  

Why?

Because laws in these three states don’t allow more than one public charter school to operate under the same governing board. In other words, there must be a full-fledged governing board for each individual charter school.  

So what’s the problem with requiring one board for every school?

The problem with the “one school, one board” policy is that it makes no exceptions for high performing charter school networks looking to expand and govern multiple campuses under one board.  These policies can create greater bureaucracy and inefficiencies that prevent effective governance.

Laws like this can discourage high-performing public charter school organizations from expanding to every state, therefore denying students and parents additional quality school options.

According to Adam Emerson, from the Fordham Institute, many high-performing charter school networks attribute part of their success to the ability to consolidate governance of multiple schools under one governing board. The Rocketship Education network is one example.

Rocketship feels so strongly about their ability to govern multiple schools under the same board that they refuse to expand to states with the “one school, one board” law.

And Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Iowa aren’t the only states with outdated charter governance laws that restrict high-quality charter school expansion. The majority of states are silent on this issue (which often results in expansion problems), while only 10 states explicitly allow multiple charter schools to be governed under the same board. 

Public charter schools with proven records of success should be able to serve students in every state. They should not be limited to specific states based on antiquated laws that may have made sense 20 years ago, when public charter schools began, but no longer support the expansion of our country’s best charter schools.

So, lets not hesitate to update the education policies that affect our students.

Regular updates and upgrades - part of keeping both iPhone software and charter school governance functioning at their best.  

Read more from Fordham about why it’s time to reboot charter school governance and our thoughts on how to effectively hold public charter schools accountable.

Check out the past week’s thinkED post on school districts (

Today, we cap our series on the topic of school districts with a look at common myths around parent trigger in light of the Florida Senate taking up the issue this week. Parent trigger policies allow parents to sign a petition demanding change from the local school district to improve their child’s persistently failing public school.

Do you follow the “five second rule”?

If you drop your delicious donut on the floor and pick it up in less than 5 seconds, will you still eat it?

The Discovery Channel’s Mythbusters explain that in fact the “five second rule” is a myth. The amount of germs a piece of food picks up off the ground depends on a host of factors – including floor cleanliness, the type of floor, and the food dropped – not on how much time the food spends on the floor.

Just as there are lots of misconceptions out there about the “five second rule,” there are many misconceptions about parent trigger, a state policy that allows parents to demand change at their child’s failing school.

So, lets test your parent trigger knowledge…

Myth or fact?

The purpose of parent trigger is to turn more traditional public schools into charter schools.

Myth: When parents petition to turn around their school, they usually can choose
 from four different turnaround options – school closure, school transformation, school turnaround, and restarting as a public charter school. Parent trigger focuses on creating meaningful opportunities for parents to change the way a school is run – charter schools are just one of multiple options.

Continue testing your knowledge about parent trigger!

Do school districts matter?

The Brown Center on Education Policy at The Brookings Institute released an interesting report today that asks, and attempts to answer, this very question.

It’s an important question. The authors – Grover Whitehurst, Matthew Chingos, and Michael Gallaher – note that leaders of school districts soak up more than their share of the spotlight when it comes to education reform. And they’re compensated well to boot. As a result, one might expect that when it comes to raising student achievement, school districts and their leaders are a pretty big deal.

The findings?

For the Brookings authors, the conclusion is, “Yes, but other factors matter more and additional study is needed.”  Districts do have a significant impact on student achievement. What we still don’t know, however, is what exactly they do to cause it or what else districts might be influencing (more on that later).

The report looks at the reading and math assessment data over the decade for every 4^th and 5^th grader in Florida and North Carolina beginning in the 2000-2001 school year (about 500,000 students). They examined data for classrooms, schools, and districts, while controlling for student demographics.

They found that they could only account for about 1% of the variance in student achievement at the school district level. This is compared to nearly 2% at the school level and a nearly 7% variance at the teacher level. Other factors, like unexplained characteristics, student level differences, and demographic controls account for the remainder of the variance.

Breaking down the analysis further, the report finds that there are districts at both ends of the spectrum – districts that negatively impact student achievement and districts whose impacts are significantly positive. In other words, there is a clear delineation among districts that add and subtract value when it comes to student learning.

What should we take away?

First, even though the effects of districts may be relatively small compared to other factors, districts are still important. In fact, the average 4^th grader in a top-performing district in North Carolina was 80% of the school year ahead of the average 4^th grader in the lowest performing district. How would you like to have an additional 7-8 months of learning packed into the same school year for your child?

Second, and perhaps more importantly, is the unanswered question raised by this study. There’s no mention of the role or impact districts have on increasing the likelihood that other factors exist (like highly effective teachers and high performing schools). This is a big deal – or at least, I sure think so.

District leaders are often the ones responsible for leading reform efforts, like improving teacher quality or creating new schools with special programs. District leaders find innovative ways to award greater autonomy for school leaders to achieve results. And district leaders are undoubtedly responsible for whether or not low-performing schools continue to exist (though it’s not as easy to say the same when it comes to personnel).

From my own experience working in DC, I witnessed the effects of district leadership on all of the issues above:  closing underperforming schools and creating new programs; setting higher standards for teachers; and establishing a new performance pay system that enables schools to attract and retain the very best teachers in greater numbers.

As the study shows (and numerous others have indicated before), better schools and stronger teachers have a significant impact on student achievement. And we’ve even seen research that describes the impact of school leaders on factors like teacher quality and student achievement.

Going forward, I am interested in knowing how much of the impact from school and teacher factors can be influenced and controlled by, and therefore attributed to, the quality of the district itself.  Because if a high performing district is also responsible for exposing more kids to effective teachers and providing more quality options to families, then yes, that district matters.

A lot.

This Wednesday, CEO Michelle Rhee will give a 

Admittedly, when we found out that the state of New Jersey is planning to take over the Camden School District, I wasn’t sure what to think. There was certainly an overriding feeling of knowing that something had to be done. 

After all, 90 percent of its schools rank in the bottom 5 percent in performance statewide.  Less than 20% of Camden students are proficient in language arts literacy, while only 30% of students are proficient in math - and the city’s graduation rate is just 49 percent. Clearly, it’s time for a change.

However, we’ve seen this before; three other districts in New Jersey – Paterson, Newark, and Jersey City – are already under state control, and have few positive results to show for it. Even Camden itself has seen a state takeover before, and that failed to improve its schools dramatically.

So what’s different this time?

Well, for one thing, this is the first time Governor Chris Christie, a leader known for championing bold changes on behalf of kids, has led a state takeover. He explained his rationale in clear and unambiguous terms:

"We're taking the lead because for too long the
public school system in Camden has failed its children.”

The fact that Governor Christie is so committed to education reform makes us hopeful that he will select a strong superintendent for Camden’s schools. Leadership selection will be key in this takeover, not only in terms of getting the right person in charge, but also in terms of timing. The state needs to move quickly; there is no time to lose in Camden.

For this governance change to work, Governor Christie and Commissioner Chris Cerf must think broadly about what powers are available to the state when it comes to the state’s schools and exercise the will to do whatever is necessary. Everything should be on the table – simply replacing a local bureaucracy with a state one will not get the job done.

What else can New Jersey do to make sure that this takeover works?

Camden’s new school leaders will need to carefully prioritize district reforms.

Because the new superintendent and management team will oversee both the educational and fiscal aspects of the district, they will have to plan strategically which changes should happen when.

Having been a part of a team taking over a dysfunctional district, I know firsthand that the initial instinct is to try to fix everything.

There is a lot to take on, but it cannot all be done at once. If there is going to be real change in Camden, the governor, commissioner, and new district leadership team need to prioritize the work in phases, building out a clear vision and goals through the first five years.

Communicating these goals clearly with the community is important as well. This will help to manage expectations regarding the changes on the way and enable everyone to track progress.

In planning the takeover, New Jersey can look to Louisiana for guidance. In 2005, devastated by the effects of Hurricane Katrina and in need of an emergency solution, Louisiana turned over a majority of the schools in the failing district of New Orleans to the state’s Recovery School District (RSD).

Created in 2003, the RSD has served as the Louisiana’s state-run district for the state’s lowest-performing schools. Under this model, New Orleans schools have demonstrated tremendous gains since Superintendent Paul Vallas took charge of the district in 2007. When he took over, Vallas delineated a clear plan and vision for the RSD and carried that plan through.  (There have been two RSD Superintendents since the tenure of Vallas).

Of course, the RSD model is not the only kind of state takeover option that Governor Christie should consider.  

Again, what’s important is that he act swiftly, consider all options on the table, and prioritize the work ahead.

By announcing that he’s taking control, at least the governor is making the commitment to put student interests above those of the system. That’s an encouraging first step.