The Best Fix to Poverty: Unions

In light of the clear evidence that poverty is the leading cause of student underperformance, this report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) should carry some uncomfortable truths for corporate education reformers

The Census Bureau will be releasing new data on poverty this week and no one is expecting much by the way of good news. While the country made considerable progress in reducing the poverty rate in the sixties and seventies, there has been little show for the last three decades. The downturn has reversed any progress that we made over this period.

However this is not the story everywhere. Other wealthy countries have considerably lower poverty rates than the United States. There are a variety of factors that affect poverty rates but one that stands out is the power of unions. There is a very strong inverse relationship between the percentage of workers who are covered by a union contract and the poverty rate as measured by the OECD.

A simple regression shows that a 10 percentage point increase in the percentage of workers covered by a union contract is associated with a 0.7 percentage point drop in the poverty rate. (This result is significant at a 1.0 percent level.) This means that countries like Sweden, Belgium, and France, where the coverage rate is close to 90 percent, can be expected to have poverty rates that are more than 5.0 percentages points lower than in the United States, where the coverage rate is less than 15 percent. In the case of the United States this would imply a reduction in the poverty rate of almost a third from current levels.

The graph shows just how clear this evidence is too

This might also explain why non unionized charter schools in Ohio underperform their unionized traditional public school counterparts.

Poverty driving factor in performance

Despite all the policy prescriptions put forward by corporate education reformers, such as privatization, standardized testings, teacher evaluations, union busting and "choice", the one policy area they seem incapable of addressing is the issue that drives student performance more than any other. Poverty.

The Ohio School Boards Association (OSBA), Ohio Association of School Business Officials (OASBO) and Buckeye Association of School Administrators (BASA) performed analysis using the latest school report cards o once again demonstrate how poverty is inextricably linked to performance.

Analysis of the most recent school district state report cards confirms research that shows poverty has a direct correlation to student performance. Using the report cards’ Performance Index (PI) as the measure, analysts examined the relationship between the PI and average income in a school district; poverty rate; percentage of residents with college degrees; and minority population.
[...]
The Performance Index is a measure of how well students performed on the state assessments. It is more than just the percentage of students achieving proficiency. Its range allows the public to judge how much higher students performed beyond proficiency.

The 123 Ohio school districts considered by the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) to be suburban districts showed not only the highest PI scores, but also the highest average income, lowest poverty rate and highest concentration of college degrees.

The graphs of Performance vs Poverty are striking

AS can be seen, there is almost a straight line extrapolation between performance and poverty level. No amount of high stakes testing or teacher bashing is going to overcome this. Investment will be the critical factor to raise the achievement levels of students from poor backgrounds.

Ohio falling behind in school funding

More and more people are starting to notice the troubling defunding of Ohio's public education system. Via Ohio.com

Two Washington, D.C., public policy groups say Ohio’s reductions in aid to public schools and the inequality among school districts have hampered efforts to boost graduation rates and cut in half the achievement gaps among low-income and minority students despite $204 million in additional federal funding.
[...]
Ohio lawmakers actually have allocated $165.6 million less in state aid this year than was set aside in 2008, according to a Beacon Journal analysis. Additional funding in the next two-year budget finally will surpass inflation-adjusted 2008 levels after six years of reduced aid.

Regardless, many schools have operated on less over the past five years.

Less funding equates to larger class sizes, less after-school and summer programming, and a stalled effort to implement national testing and teacher evaluations, Leachman said.

Efforts like the Straight A Fund are gimmicks designed to hide the true budget cuts schools are having to deal with.

Straight A Fund - Application Process

The Straight A Fund is on a pretty fast track. Individuals, districts and groups that are thinking about applying for the $100 million dollars available this year, should begin that process immediately.

Straight A Fund Timeline

9/18/13 - Informational Webinar
9/19/13 - Fiscal Sustainability Webinar
10/04/13 - Deadline for Intent to Apply
10/04/13 - Scorer Applications Due
10/14/13 - Grants Management System (CCIP) Open for Application Entry
10/25/13 - Application Deadline
10/29/13 - Fiscal Sustainability Review
11/05/13 - Scoring Analysis
11/06/13 - Grant Advisors Review of Scoring Results
11/12/13 - Governing Board Meeting - Fiscal Sustainability Results/Approval
11/13/13 - Programmatic Scoring
11/20/13 - Scoring Analysis
11/25/13 - Grant Advisors Review Scoring Results
12/03/13 - Governing Board Meeting - Programmatic Results/Approval
12/16/13 - Controlling Board Meeting
12/17/13 - Send Grant Award Letters

The application materials can be found here.

We remain skeptical that any lasting impact can come from one-time money, and would much rather see the legislature develop an adequate funding model for all schools, and not dog-eat-dog competitions. Districts and their personnel are already strained dealing with many new mandates from the state and the federal government, having to redirect even more resources towards dreaming up grant programs that fit the Straight A Funds very narrow scope is not going to be very beneficial towards the key mission - educating students.

Majority of Educators Support the Common Core

Via NEA

According to a new poll by the National Education Association, the Common Core State Standards are strongly supported by its members. Roughly two-thirds of educators are either wholeheartedly in favor of the standards (26 percent) or support them with “some reservations” (50 percent). Only 11 percent of those surveyed expressed opposition.
[...]
All respondents cited a number of ways the new standards will affect their teaching. Thirty-one percent believe they will lead to more time taken up by standardized testing and 30 percent said they will allow teacher to delve into subjects more deeply. Others cited more time to teach process and problem-solving and having more time for instruction on fewer topics.

Even among many Common Core supporters, the thorny issue over new assessments is feeding their reservations. Fifty-five percent said their schools plan to use Common Core assessments to evaluate their performance, but an overwhelming majority (81 percent) favor a moratorium or grace period on accountability provisions, with 2-5 years being the most popular.

There's more at the link.

Why we should use 0% VAM on teacher evaluations

@ The Chalk Face lists a number of reasons why Value Added Measures (VAM) should not be used to evaluate educators

  • A fundamental premise in statistics is do not use a metric for some purpose other than the one for which it was designed. Student tests are not designed to measure teacher quality.
  • An ethical problem with VAM is holding one person (teacher) accountable for another person’s (student’s) performance.
  • Campbell’s Law.
  • What is tested is what is taught—the high-stakes accountability era has taught us that the more we focus on testing, the less we ask from teachers and students.
  • The only fair way to implement VAM is to pre- and post-test every student in every class throughout the U.S. This is not justifiable in its cost in either time or money for the outcomes.
  • Using VAM in any way incentivizes each teacher to use her/his students against the outcomes of other teachers’ students, possibly the most ethically damning aspect of VAM.

In Ohio, where available, VAM accounts for 50% of a teachers evaluation, even if students in their class are chronically truant.