U.S. Public Education System

1
U.S. Public Education System
2
Common Civic and National Identity

• The importance of universal education in
  promoting the civic values necessary for a
  successful democracy
• Thomas Jefferson, Horace Mann, John Dewey

3
Civic Values in Education

• Integration
• Tolerance
• Public spiritedness
• Democratic values
• Commitment to the public good

4
Civic Values in Education

• The idea of the common school is deeply
  entrenched in American values
• The emotional attachment to publicly operated
  schools is very high
• But
• Dont private schools do the same thing?

5
Private Schools in the U.S.
6
Examining Private Schools

• Less than 15 of all U.S. school-aged children
  are enrolled in private schools
• Private schools are not subsidized with public
  funds
• 90 of these are religious institutions of some
  sort

7
Schools Students Type of
school Number Percent Number
Percent
Religious schools 20,531 78.7
4.2 mill 84.5 Catholic schools
8,351 32.0 2.5 mill
50.6 Other religions 12,180 46.7
1.7 mill 33.9 Nonreligious
schools 5,563 21.3 0.76
mill 15.5
All Private Schools 26,094
100 4.97 mill
100

8
Examining Private Schools

• Access externalities
• Selection of students (applications gt slots)
• Creaming high quality students away from public
  schools?
• Decreased voter support for public schools?
• Increased public per capita spending in public
  schools?

9
But, are public and private schools perfect
substitutes?

• Unlikely
• Parents with strong preferences for religious
  education
• Parents with strong preference for public
  education

10
Are public schools actually producing students
who are more public spirited than private
schools?
11
Empirical data from the National Education
Longitudinal Study (NELS)
12
NELS Data

• Funded by the U.S. Department of Education
• Representative national sample of 12th graders,
  their parents, and administrators at their schools

13
In terms of integration?

• Private schools educate a smaller percentage of
  minority students in the nation
• But, private schools are less segregated than
  public schools
• Minority students at private schools have better
  educational outcomes (less tracking and ability
  grouping?)

14
In terms of Racial Tolerance?

• Questions on the survey
• Have you made friends with a student from a
  different racial/ethnic group?
• Extent of racial conflicts at school

15
Racial Tolerance

• Overwhelming evidence for a higher degree of
  racial tolerance in private schools

16
In terms of Civic Mindedness and Volunteering?

• Holding socio-economic status constant, private
  schools are characterized by strong public
  spiritedness
• Students in private schools are
• More likely to volunteer
• More likely to volunteer often
• More likely to believe that volunteering is
  important

17
In terms of Democratic Values?

• Private schools are more likely to promote
  citizenship directly
• Private schools are more likely to promote
  awareness of contemporary social issues
• Private schools are more likely to teach morals
  and values in school

18
WolfReview of 21 studies on the effect of
school choice on civic values

• School choice advantage in the promotion of
  public values
• Well ordered schools?
• Non-threatening school environment?
• Better teaching outcomes?
• Especially in ethnic minority neighborhoods

19
Civics Exams
20
What then do we conclude about the success of
private schools in achieving public goals?
21
Examining Public School Performance
22
Public School System

• Enrolls 90 of all elementary and secondary
  school children in the U.S.
• Justified by powerful ideologies
• 150 years of history
• Funded by a 528.7 billion annual budget, 90.0
  from state and local budgets, 9.1 from federal
  government.
• Federal dollars 4.6 of GDP

23
How do we pay for public schools?
24
Public School System

• Uniqueness of the of U.S. education system prior
  to NCLB Act in 2001
• No national standards
• Decentralized nature of decision making
• Significant variation among school districts in
  terms of quality and performance
• High level of non-instructional spending -
  provision of additional services
• Free text books
• Special programs
• Guidance counselors
• School nurses
• Librarians
• Busing
• Lunch programs, etc.

25
What do we spend education dollars on?
26
U.S. Spending on Education

• Spending on elementary and high schools has
  quadrupled since 1960 in inflation adjusted
  dollars
• Mean of 9,154/student in 2007
• 10,109 in NYC, 3,453 in Utah
• 51 spending growth since 1985
• Spending on education in the U.S. is average
  compared to other industrialized nations
• Non-institutionalized spending is proportionally
  higher (busing, lunch programs, etc.)

27
(No Transcript)
28
Annual Secondary Education Expenditures per
Student
29
Public School System

• Despite this spending
• High school graduation rates have not improved
• 12th graders come 15th out of 20 in math and
  science compared to other industrialized nations
• Overcrowded and dilapidated classrooms and schools

30
Conclusion?More s have not meant better
quality education!!
31
Trends in International Math and Science Study
(TIMSS)
Ranking from highest to lowest 2006
32
TIMMS rankings under question

• New study by Urban Institute entitled Rising
  Above the Gathering Storm (2007) finds
• U.S. students taking more math and science
  classes
• Math, science and reading test scores have
  increased over the past decade (1997-2007)
• U.S. students are now close to the top of the
  international rankings
• Our education system produces more science and
  engineering graduates than the market demands

33
Conditions in some inner city schools are
intolerable
But,
34
Background to the Problem

• In most inner-cities, schools resemble prisons
  and the crime rate on school property approaches
  that of the neighborhood at large
• Inequality in schools located in urban rural/
  poor and suburban neighborhoods
• Chicago school drop-out rate is as high as
  50-70 in some schools, half leave school as
  functional illiterates

35
The Plight of Inner-City Schools

• Costs to maintain schools are high
• Schools are failing in their educational mission
• Choices among inner-city schools are few
• Poverty and unemployment of parents
• Student retention is a problem

36
Challenges for Inner-City Schools

• School readiness
• The line between family and school responsibility
• The inability of schools to reconstruct
  themselves
• Reforms and the reality of the classroom
• Frustrated and alienated teachers
• Administrative turnover

37

• Many public schools in suburban areas do
  exceptionally well and a high percent of these
  students go on to college--some as high as 95
• Many suburban schools have long waiting lists
  allowing them to be very selective in admissions

38
And,..

• Private markets have consistently done a better
  job of serving families than have noncompetitive
  public schools

39
Report on the Quality of School Environments
Achievement levels provide a yardstick for
performance 2007
40
(No Transcript)
41
WRITING SCORES
42
(No Transcript)
43
(No Transcript)
44
(No Transcript)
45
(No Transcript)
46
(No Transcript)
47
(No Transcript)
48
(No Transcript)
49
(No Transcript)
50
(No Transcript)
51
(No Transcript)
52
There is also evidence on how private school
children are performing
53
(No Transcript)
54
(No Transcript)
55
(No Transcript)
56
Private Schools

• Private schools spend as little as one third the
  amount on each registered child
• Private schools have statistically smaller class
  sizes, smaller schools, safer schools, and
  smaller teacher/student ratios
• Although private schools have less qualified
  teachers compared to their public school
  counterparts, students perform better on average

57
If private schools seem to do as well as public
schools, does the government need to pay for
education and administer that education? Cant
private markets work just as well?
58

• Most people believe that both funding and
  administering the systems is necessary to produce
  a successful democracy

59

• But others see School Choice as a
• solution to the problem

Logic Return power to parents and local
communities by giving them back tax dollars in
the form of vouchers allowing them to purchase
tuition at the schools of their choice, whether
government run or privately supported, and let
competition improve school quality
60
Lets examine whether school choiceis the answer
61
How are public schools financed?
62
Decentralized Reward System

• Districts that are good and efficient providers
  of schooling tend to be rewarded with larger
  school budgets
• School budgetf(local property taxes)
• Local property taxesf(house prices)
• House pricesf(marginal value buyers place on
  local schools)

63
Decentralized Reward System

• Residential patterns emerge that mirror household
  desires for level of school spending

64
Lets examine The Foundations of School Choice
65
Parents Ability to Choose

• Public Schools
• Through residential choices
• Choices among public school districts
• Location causes differences in choice (number of
  schools/districts)
• Private Schools
• Ability to pay
• Differences by socioeconomic status
• Location causes differences in choice

66
Inter-District School Choice
67
Inter-District School Choice

• Choice of a residence
• Residence patterns and labor market opportunities
• House prices and property taxes
• Sorting into different districts
• Homogenous school district
• Parents with same preferences, ability to pay
• Differentiated school districts
• After sorting into homogenous districts
• Constraints
• Ability of low-income families to choose
  districts
• Less choice means less influence

68
Constraints on Inter-District School Choice

• So, in terms of school choice we conclude that
• Not all parents have equal ability to exercise
  choice
• High income parents have more choice than low
  income parents
• Parents living in some suburban/urban geographic
  areas have more choice than other parents living
  in inner city/rural areas

69
But, does choice automatically mean better
performing schools?
70
How do we measure inter-district school choice?
71
Herfindahl Index

• Based on number of districts in the area and on
  the evenness with which student enrollment is
  spread across districts
• Measures districts enrollment share
• e.g., Herfindahl Index1 no choice
• e.g., Herfindahl Index.03 substantial choice

72
Herfindahl Index

• Hypothesis
• The observed degree of choice available among
  public school districts is possibly related to
  the school quality experienced by the typical
  student

73
Herfindahl Index- Assumption

• Districts enrollment share reflects their
  success
• Highly successful districts attract a
  disproportionate share of students
• As a result of competition from these successful
  districts, smaller districts might merge further
  restricting choice

74
Empirical Evidence
Whats the evidence of the impact of school
choice on school performance?
75
Intra-District School ChoicePublic Schools
76
Impact of Inter-District Competition

• On educational outcomes
• Test scores 3
• Educational attainment 0.4 years
• On spending per pupil
• Per pupil spending 17
• On school segregation (SES, Race)
• No impact, there is already sorting into
  neighborhoods within districts
• On parental satisfaction
• Higher satisfaction
• On parental involvement
• Annual parental visits to school 30 probability

77
Intra-District School ChoicePublic v. Private
Schools
78
Intra-District School Choice

• On public school educational outcomes
• Public schools test scores 8
• Educational attainment of students in public
  schools 12 increase in probability of
  graduating college
• Differences driven primarily by student body
  composition and school characteristics
• On public school per pupil spending
• No impact
• On school segregation
• No impact, there is already sorting into
  neighborhoods within districts

79
What do we predict regarding school choice in
general?
80
The Likely Impact of Public-Private School Choice

• Likely to have an impact on public schools
  (improved quality, reduced costs)
• Reaction of public schools will be based on the
  fiscal rewards/ penalties attached to gaining/
  losing students from competition

81
The Likely Impact of Public-Private School Choice

• Segregation effects of choice are likely to be
  small because there is a large amount of
  segregation already in school districts
• Choice will result in more involved parents
  (tougher curricula? stricter school discipline?)
• Remembering that different types of schools
  substitute for one another, but to a limited
  degree

82
Improving the U.S. Education System
83
SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY The No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001
84
Policy Solution
No Child Left Behind (2001)
85
Four Principles of NCLB

• Stronger accountability for results
• Expanded flexibility and local control
• Expanded options for parents
• Putting reading first
• Emphasis on successfully proven teaching methods

86
Choice

• EXPANDING OPTIONS FOR PARENTS OF CHILDREN FROM
  DISADVANTAGED
• BACKGROUNDS
• Public School Choice Parents with children in
  failing schools would be allowed to transfer
  their child to a better-performing public or
  charter school immediately after a school is
  identified as failing.
• Charter Schools H.R. 1 expands federal support
  for charter schools by giving parents, educators
  and interested community leaders greater
  opportunities to create new charter schools.

87
Accountability

• ACCOUNTABILITY FOR RESULTS
• H.R. 1 will result in the creation of annual
  assessments in each state that measure what
  children know and learn in reading and math in
  grades 3-8.

http//www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/factsheet.ht
ml
88
Accountability

• CONFIRMING PROGRESS
• Under H.R. 1 a small sample of students in each
  state will participate in the fourth and
  eighth-grade National Assessment of Educational
  Progress (NAEP) in reading and math every other
  year in order to help the US Department of
  Education verify the results of statewide
  assessments.

89
Language Proficiency

• PROMOTING ENGLISH PROFICIENCY
• H.R. 1 consolidates the US Department of
  Education's bilingual and immigrant education
  programs. The new Act will focus on helping
  limited English proficient (LEP) students learn
  English through scientifically based teaching
  methods.

90
Proposed Policy Solution
No Child Left Behind (2001)
91
School ChoicePublic Alternatives
92
Suggested Public Policy Solutions

• Magnet Schools
• Charter Schools
• School Vouchers

93
Research Impact of Competition on School Quality
Impact of Charter Schools in Michigan and Arizona
94
(No Transcript)
95
(No Transcript)
96
Summer 2008
97
(No Transcript)
98
Their Conclusion
Why?
99
(No Transcript)
100
What about the Impact of Vouchers?
101
Research results

• Typically disadvantaged racial and ethnic groups
  are well represented in voucher schools
• But, vouchers tend to go to more advantaged
  students whose parents have more education,
  higher income, and greater expectations for their
  children
• Parental involvement is higher in voucher schools
  and emphasized in those schools more

102
Pilot Program Results Academic

• Inconsistency in results
• No conclusive results showing any significant
  benefits of vouchers on student achievement
• Cleveland no significant differences in academic
  progress between voucher recipients and their
  public school counterparts

103
Academic Randomized Trials

• Milwaukee randomized trials
• No differences in reading, social studies and
  science scores
• Some evidence of advantages in math, science and
  language after controlling for students
  characteristics, school characteristics, and
  academic climate (did not control for family and
  socio-economic factors)
• Some evidence that racial differences in
  performance become smaller

104
(No Transcript)
105
Proposed Policy Solution
No Child Left Behind (2001)
106
SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY HIGH STAKES TESTING
107
What is HIGH STAKES Testing?

• Supporters of high stakes testing believe that
  the quality of American education can be improved
  by a system of rewards and sanctions that are
  triggered by students test performance

108
The Concept Behind High Stakes Testing

• Rewards
• Monetary benefits for district/school
• Special scholarships or awards for high-achieving
  students
• Teachers and principals receive bonuses

• Sanctions
• Withhold funding
• School/district takeover by the state
• School/district placed on probation
• Holding back students
• Remediation programs

109
HIGH STAKES TESTING AND STUDENTS

• POSITIVE
• Provide students with better knowledge about
  their skills
• Motivating Factor
• Helps student equate hard work with achievement
• Sends clear signals to students about what to
  study

• NEGATIVE
• Tests frustrate students and discourage them from
  trying
• Makes students more competitive
• Causes students to devalue grades and school
  assessments

110
HIGH STAKES TESTING AND TEACHERS

• POSITIVE
• Better diagnosis of individual students needs
• Helps teachers focus studies on what is necessary
• Motivates teachers
• Leads teachers to align instruction with the
  standards
• Encourages professional development

• NEGATIVE
• Teachers focus on specific test content not on
  curriculum standards
• Devalues teachers individual senses of worth
• Entices teachers to cheat when administering
  tests
• Teachers engage in inappropriate test preparation

111
HIGH STAKES TESTING AND ADMINISTRATORS

• POSITIVE
• Causes administration to look at school policies
• Helps to judge quality of their work
• Leads to change and improvement
• Better resource allocation decisions are made

• NEGATIVE
• Policies may be implemented to raise scores but
  not real learning
• Resources overused on one student, or wasted on
  test preparation
• Distracts schools from other problems

112
HIGH STAKES TESTING AND POLICYMAKERS

• POSITIVE
• Helps policy makers judge the effectiveness of
  policies
• Improves ability to monitor school performance
  and progress
• Fosters better allocation of state resources

• NEGATIVE
• May deliver misleading statistic which lead to
  rash decisions
• Fosters a blame the victims feeling among
  policymakers
• Encourages a simplistic view of educational
  success

113
Race and Class Based Concerns

• Children in minority and low-income communities
  are disproportionately likely to fail high-stakes
  exams
• This leaves officials pressured to reduce the
  number of failing students

114
Resistance in High-Performing Communities

• Resistance to mandated curricula content
• Fear that this will disrupt gifted, AP and IB
  classrooms
• Inaccurate proxy for the broader quality of
  schooling
• Desire to protect reputations of their schools

115
Research Results

• Amrein and Berliner (2002)
• Time trend analysis to study the effects of
  testing on K-8 and High School levels
• Used NAEP scores in math and reading
• No consistent effects across states were noted

116
Research Results

• A recent study by the Northwest Evaluation
  Association found that of 320,000 student test
  scores from 23 states, gains in scores were slow.
  Additionally, the gap is widening between white
  and minority students.

117
Research Results

• In contrast, a Stanford economist found that a
  two-step increase on their high-stakes
  accountability scale1 raised the achievement of
  minority students by 1 to 1.75 standard
  deviations on the NAEP tests. By way of
  comparison, the Tennessee STAR class-size
  experiment raised student achievement by only
  0.21 standard deviations.

1 A scale measuring the degree of state pressure
on schools and students to improve achievement.
http//www.sharingsuccess.org/code/bv/testing.pdf
118
Retention Rates

• Effects of high-stakes testing on student
  retention or high school graduation rates are
  unclear. To date, there is no solid evidence that
  high-stakes testing either improves or worsens
  graduation or student retention.

119
Conclusions on Testing

• In truth, both proponents and opponents are
  correct.
• While some researchers, like Hanushek, claim that
  results are well established, much more time/data
  is needed for us to make a conclusion!

120
What are the results of school choice to date?

• INCONCLUSIVE

121
What are the results of high stakes testing to
date?

• INCONCLUSIVE

122
Proposed Policy Solution
No Child Left Behind (2001)
123
PROMOTING ENGLISH PROFECIENCYLANGUAGE IMMERSION
PROGRAMS
124
Legislative Background

• Title III (state competitive formula grant
  system) sets specific standards that are to be
  met for Limited English Proficient (LEP)
  students, to ensure that they
• Develop and reach English proficiency.
• Attain high levels of academic achievement in
  core content areas.
• Meet the same academic content and achievement
  standards as other children are expected to meet.

http//www.ncrel.org/litweb/qkey5/qkey5.pdf
125
How Does The Law Define Effective Language
Instruction?

• Title III, Part A, gives SEAs and LEAs
  flexibility to implement language instruction
  educational programs, based on scientifically
  based research on teaching LEP children, that the
  agencies believe to be the most effective for
  teaching English. A language instruction
  educational program may use both English and the
  students native language.

http//www.ncrel.org/litweb/qkey5/qkey5.pdf
126
Concerns With NCLB - LEP

• The goals for LEP programs are simply to
  mainstream the students as soon as possible and
  to teach them the content of the state
  standardized exams.
• Schools are under immense pressure to raise test
  scores, so instruction narrowly focuses on the
  test, and discourages instruction focusing on the
  true needs of LEP students.
• Funding for LEP students nearly doubled, however,
  these federal funds are now spread more thinly,
  resulting in less dollars per eligible LEP
  student.

http//www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPSL-0
501-101-LPRU.pdf
127
Concerns With NCLB - LEP

• The federal law now only requires that LEP
  students be placed in language instruction
  education programs. The use of teaching the
  students native language is optional.
• While LEP students must be tested, states are
  finding creative ways to exclude their scores,
  thus helping many schools avoid being held
  accountable for a LEP subgroup.

http//www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPSL-0
501-101-LPRU.pdf
128
What are the results of LEP programs to date?

• INCONCLUSIVE

129
Concerns With NCLB

• Proficiency standards vary by state
• Flexibility in meeting proficiency date targets
• Teachers qualification tests too easy
• Local schools resisting school choice
• The laws reluctance to interfere with
  traditional state and local powers and
  prerogatives