Debunking School “Reform” Myths
A couple of myths have been floating around education “reform” circles recently:
1) Teachers unions are standing in the way of school improvement
2) Money doesn’t matter
Both of these myths are debunked by California’s QEIA – Quality Education Investment Act.
The Quality Education Investment Act of 2006 was strongly supported by the 325,000-member California Teachers Association (CTA, an affiliate of the National Education Association). The law establishes a grant program that will put nearly $3 billion over seven years into 496* lower performing schools. These schools initially ranked in the bottom two deciles of the state, according to API (Academic Performance Index, a California measure of school performance based on standardized test scores).
While allowing schools the flexibility to development their own individual improvement plans, QEIA directs money into evidence-based reforms, including class-size reductions, credentialed school counselors, high-quality professional development and time for teacher collaboration.
QEIA schools began implementing their improvement plans in 2008, after a year of preparation. And CTA has been deeply involved in working with participating schools, offering group and individual training to school staff, and assisting with program implementation and monitoring.
QEIA schools reach more than 500,000 students (85% of whom receive free or reduced price lunch, most of whom are Latino/Hispanic and 42% of whom are English learners), and initial results are promising. The very first year of implementation, QEIA schools experienced five more points of growth on API than did a comparison group of non-QEIA schools. And in 2010:
- 393 QEIA schools had positive growth on API scores (including two schools with growth of 100 points or more, and an additional 49 schools with growth of 50 points or more)
- 26 QEIA schools exited Program Improvement (meaning they made AYP for two consecutive years) – 17 of these schools had been in Program Improvement for five years; another four had been in Program Improvement for four years
- An additional 39 QEIA schools made AYP and are now “frozen” in Program Improvement
If you want to see the impact of QEIA grants on a specific school, turn to Merced’s John Muir Elementary or San Francisco’s Miraloma Elementary. At one time struggling, both now exceed the state’s goals for school performance.
Of course, neither of those schools (or any other QEIA school, for that matter) improved just because they had more money. But the money does enable their comprehensive, collaborative and ongoing improvement efforts. Policymakers all over the country would be wise to consider this program's success when making hard budget choices in the coming months.
*The program was originally designed to serve 488 schools; there were 496 participating at the time of QEIA’s 2010 API report.
SIGN UP
Visionaries
Click here to browse dozens of Public School Insights interviews with extraordinary education advocates, including:
- 2013 Digital Principal Ryan Imbriale
- Best Selling Author Dan Ariely
- Family Engagement Expert Dr. Maria C. Paredes
The views expressed in this website's interviews do not necessarily represent those of the Learning First Alliance or its members.
New Stories
Featured Story
Excellence is the Standard
At Pierce County High School in rural southeast Georgia, the graduation rate has gone up 31% in seven years. Teachers describe their collaboration as the unifying factor that drives the school’s improvement. Learn more...
School/District Characteristics
Hot Topics
Blog Roll
Members' Blogs
- Transforming Learning
- The EDifier
- School Board News Today
- Legal Clips
- Learning Forward’s PD Watch
- NAESP's Principals' Office
- NASSP's Principal's Policy Blog
- The Principal Difference
- ASCA Scene
- PDK Blog
- Always Something
- NSPRA: Social School Public Relations
- AACTE's President's Perspective
- AASA's The Leading Edge
- AASA Connects (formerly AASA's School Street)
- NEA Today
- Angles on Education
- Lily's Blackboard
- PTA's One Voice
- ISTE Connects
What Else We're Reading
- Advancing the Teaching Profession
- Edwize
- The Answer Sheet
- Edutopia's Blogs
- Politics K-12
- U.S. Department of Education Blog
- John Wilson Unleashed
- The Core Knowledge Blog
- This Week in Education
- Inside School Research
- Teacher Leadership Today
- On the Shoulders of Giants
- Teacher in a Strange Land
- Teach Moore
- The Tempered Radical
- The Educated Reporter
- Taking Note
- Character Education Partnership Blog
- Why I Teach
Three BILLION? Is this money
Three BILLION? Is this money we really have to spend in a down economy? They can't use a workbook ($10) and a teacher and a blackboard? How could you possibly spend three billion dollars and NOT see improvement? (You'd have to work at it!) And again, we're linking to test scores rather than something more measurable to laypeople such as, "Our English classes went from reading Cat in the Hat to Chaucer in two years. Every student is now able to read older modern English fluently and with full understanding." Which is what I'd expect for three billion bucks, along with the cure for cancer being discovered in third-grade science classes. :)
Really, my comment isn't about teachers' unions or free lunch kids. Everyone wants children to succeed. It's about sustainable taxation and not living above our means.
Happy Elf Mom - aka the
Happy Elf Mom - aka the former Mrs C! - It is tough when we look at state budgets, there is no denying that. Most states are not going to be in a position to undertake similar programs in the coming years...but maybe part of it is looking at these reforms and saying, "Hey, smaller classes work" or "More counselors = better outcomes," allowing individual districts take what they learn here and apply their limited funding to it.
But excellent point about reliance on test scores (though I am not sure that most laypeople would think that it is important for all students to read older modern English fluently and with full understanding). We need a better way to assess whether students are actually learning what we as a society think is important...and while basic math and reading skills are part of that, they are absolutely not all of it.
And in general, I do understand the point of your comment. As JB points out below, CA is a hard example, because many people would agree that they have not supported their public schools to an adequate degree for years, since well before the economy tanked. But some states do put in a great deal more money, relative to their capacity, and it is hard (impossible?) to know at what point you as a state/district have reached the ideal amount, when your investment in kids is paid back by future tax earnings and is not setting up future expenses in the justice and welfare systems. It is a delicate balance...
Well, I was being kinda
Well, I was being kinda sarcastic about expecting the cure for cancer and all that, but not about 3 billion being a LOT of money. :)
I am not sure what to think about the smaller vs. larger class size and other issues. I do know that this is a very bad time to be advocating for "wraparound" services and the like when middle class parents are the ones funding them... and halfway needing them themselves... and yet our property taxes are going UP on older vehicles and on our homes because governments have shortfalls. Sure wish my husband could demand more salary because he must pay MORE in taxes and gets LESS back presently in terms of road repair and good schools, etc.
I don't think your average taxpayer is uncharitable, but when one is concerned about losing employment and taxes don't go away but go UP for fewer services, it's concerning. We just don't have three billion to give away, really. None of us do.
Do you have a link to the
Do you have a link to the data you're drawing from?
I have to say, based on the limited information here we can't really say a thing about whether QEIA is working or not (although the structure of the proposal sounds like it's rife for a regression-discontinuity experiment).
I will say that at $6,000,000 per school I'd expect to see some pretty stellar results.
I'd also add that, "Money doesn't matter," is different than, "Money is not the problem," and that transformative change almost always happens with a ton of additional money or because of a huge drop in revenue.
Btw, by link, I mean not the
Btw, by link, I mean not the CTA press release and instead the actual report.
Also, California is a tough state to talk about this whole "money matters" thing because they're one of the few places where it's quite clear they've underfunded their system.
JB - Here is a link to the
JB - Here is a link to the year 1 research brief, as a PDF (though you are not going to like that this research appears to actually have been done by the CTA): http://www.cta.org/Issues-and-Action/QEIA/~/media/7CAF4E739A4C4ADDB189DC...
For the 2010 data, all I've got is the list attached to the CTA press release: http://www.cta.org/About-CTA/News-Room/Press-Releases/2010/10/~/media/D4...
According to the list, it was generated by the Southern Technical Assistance Center, though I cannot find it on their website: http://qeia.org/
Given that the list gave me the names of the best-performing schools, as well as their scores and status in some instances (all publicly available information that I could have easily verified if I'd taken the time), I felt okay about using just that. What is missing, of course, is the list of schools that have not made dramatic gains...
And certainly, at this point it would be impossible to say that "QEIA worked" - though you are right that the project is set up for researchers (and hopefully some will take it up, though state governments are not always the biggest supporters of rigorous program evaluations - if nothing else, I am sure that the CTA at least will stick with it).
But the initial results are promising. And I think that the fact that 17 schools made AYP two years in a row after not making it for five, and an additional four did so after not making it for four are evidence that things are happening. Given that these are not necessarily the lowest 5% of schools in the state, but in the lowest 20%, these are schools that might not be eligible for some of the federal school improvement funds, so I think this is a great opportunity for them to show what they can do with additional funding.
I do agree with you that "Money doesn't matter" is different than "Money is not the problem" - but am not sure how you are using that here. I also agree that CA is a unique case given they have underfunded their system. Are you suggesting that in a state like CA money (or the lack there of) could be the problem, where as in states that have more funding already (maybe Wyoming - from what I have read, not what I know personally), not so much, and a program like QEIA may not have as much an effect?
And as to your point that transformative change almost always happens with a ton of additional money or because of a huge drop in revenue...that does tend to be true. And hopefully in the coming months, we find that the change is positive...
Hi Anne, I lost track of this
Hi Anne,
I lost track of this conversation but will look into the additional information. I don't mind research that's conducted by biased groups on either side, but I do tend to trust some methodologies over others. I'll have to see how they collected what information and what they did with it before knowing my confidence level.
"But the initial results are promising. And I think that the fact that 17 schools made AYP two years in a row after not making it for five, and an additional four did so after not making it for four are evidence that things are happening. Given that these are not necessarily the lowest 5% of schools in the state, but in the lowest 20%, these are schools that might not be eligible for some of the federal school improvement funds, so I think this is a great opportunity for them to show what they can do with additional funding."
There's a few key things here-- the question is not whether these schools have improved but how unexpected these improvements are had there not been an intervention. What we need to know is how frequently schools that would be identified in this group in one particular year ended up having the same results several years later absent any intervention. The fact that we have a larger catchment area is a double-edged sword-- a school at the 19th percentile is more likely to see this improvement than a school in the 2nd percentile. In general, it's hard to assess if there has been a change in the rate of improvement or in the frequency with which schools jump from one group to another.
"I do agree with you that "Money doesn't matter" is different than "Money is not the problem" - but am not sure how you are using that here. I also agree that CA is a unique case given they have underfunded their system. Are you suggesting that in a state like CA money (or the lack there of) could be the problem, where as in states that have more funding already (maybe Wyoming - from what I have read, not what I know personally), not so much, and a program like QEIA may not have as much an effect?"
Well, think of it this way-- more money will always make things better. But we expect the rate at which more money will make things better to diminish as you increase the total amount of money in the system (diminishing returns). At some point, we expect that although increasing money will still make a meaningful difference, you can actually see greater differences by changing how you allocate resources within the big black box of total school spending.
Example:
I have $50,000 in my white board budget and $250,000 in my teacher salary budget. I pay my teachers $30,000, $50,000, $70,000 and $100,000 dollars. Will I be better off with $30,000 more dollars? Well, if I use the same split I did before, I'll spend $5,000 on more white boards and $25,000 on teachers. 25k can buy me an aid, but not a whole teacher. In this case, spending 30k less on whiteboards buys me a full teacher. So yes, I can improve with extra money, but if I shift how I spend my current money, I can improve more.
Sometimes you need more money, sometimes you need to spend smarter. When you're grossly underfunded, no matter how you spend the money you won't have enough. A lot of CA is like that. Many other states are not in this space.
$3 billion is a lot and
$3 billion is a lot and schools do desperately need enormous infusions of money (California dropped from one of the top 10 states in the U.S. in per pupil spending to one of the bottom 5 after the Jarvis-Gann tax revolt).
However, to get the biggest bang for our buck, the investment needs to be in helping low and moderate income families gain more financial and material security. The single most significant influence on academic achievement is family wealth. This influences diet and nutrition, pollution, access to health care, stress, all of which significantly impact cognitive development, learning disabilities, health and attendance.
Post new comment