Raising Bars and Stumbling Blocks
The idea of using market principles to formulate education policy is the core assumption behind NCLB, testing, accountability, and competitiveness. The idea is that if we “raise the bar,” and set expectations high enough, teachers and students will endeavor to excel. Achievement gains will naturally follow, and our society will continue on it’s path of progress. The taxpayers, or shareholders, are happy because they realize a return on their investment. On the other hand, if schools don’t meet performance targets, teachers and students are designated failures, and “corrective measures” are indicated. Just like business, I hear. But not exactly, it seems.
I ran - or stumbled - across a connection between bar-raising and profits today that has me wondering why this carrot and stick notion about school competitiveness has been so uncritically embraced by policy makers, politicians, and public school critics when it seems to be the antithesis of corporate boardroom strategy. My Sunday paper featured this WSJ article in the Business section with the headline:
Profit Strategy: Set the Bar Low, Leap Over
By Joanna L. Ossinger
July 8, 2007Set expectations low, then exceed them and make people happy. That classic strategy has been practiced time and again in the world of corporate earnings announcements — and investors are hoping that the second-quarter earnings season, which picks up steam this week, will bring such positive surprises.
If this is a “classic strategy” that’s been “practiced time and again,” how is it also a “positive surprise” unless everyone involved is delusional? These are all smart, hard-headed, bottom-line driven, rational people who don’t mess around. Right? Oh, and another question…if high expectations and business metaphors apply to school, why shouldn’t they also apply to business?
The WSJ calls it “seeing the bright side,” and Ossinger quotes Brian Rauscher, director of portfolio strategy at Brown Brothers Harriman, who explains how earnings estimates are developed:
Mr. Rauscher says “there is very little motivation for management to give positive forward guidance” — that is, to nudge earnings expectations upward — “unless they’re 100% sure it’s going to happen.”
Companies instead often aim for “safe” guidance, which reduces the risk of negative publicity or a big drop in the stock price if actual earnings prove disappointing.
That makes sense, and it’s how we try to manage our household budget, lowballing our estimates for income, and trying to account for unexpected expenses so if we ever have a little money at the end of the month, we can be “surprised.”
I am truly surprised, though, that this article doesn’t treat this “lower the bar and leap over” strategy as morally questionable, because that’s what public school critics do when teachers adjust their instruction to meet the needs of kids in their classes. And why is it that we don’t hear anyone claiming that doing this will “dumb down” the economy, and make us less competitive? Ossinger notes that when actual earnings are disappointing, stock prices drop, indicating that public opinion does indeed have an effect on performance. Applying that principle, wouldn’t we want to boost public support for schools by recognizing the need for flexibility in goal setting, accounting for multiple influences on performance targets? To me it looks like education policy is aimed at reducing support for public schools. That is, if we want to use market principles.
The principle at work here is that when we set our own goals, we can feel free to revise our estimates, but when we have our goals set for us by someone else, the inflexibility of the situation forces us into a win-or-lose position that exposes us to criticism for being weak or ineffective. One person’s “bar” is the next one’s stumbling block. There’s a lesson here for teachers with respect to assessment, too, I believe.
This article by Kevin Carey, writing for Education Sector, Hot Air: How States Inflate Their Educational Progress is a good example of what I mean. The title says it all, but I’ll spend a moment on a couple of points. Carey says that even though the law gives state departments of ED wide discretion in defining the test score cut levels that will constitute “proficiency,” he says that states “have taken advantage of this autonomy to make their educational performance look much better than it really is.” He wants it both ways. States may have flexibility, but they shouldn’t use it to make a school look good. Instead schools have to “be honest” and take their lumps because he assumes that the news has got to be bad.
The result is a system of perverse incentives that rewards state education officials who misrepresent reality. Their performance looks better in the eyes of the public and they’re able to avoid conflict with organized political interests. By contrast, officials who keep expectations high and report honest data have more hard choices to make and are penalized because their states look worse than others by comparison.
How does Carey know what “reality” is? He uses the NAEP tests, which consistently report lower scores than the state tests, and have problems of their own. (see also, A Test Everyone Will Fail.) In Carey’s world, “high expectations” and “honest data” are paired and linked to “hard choices,” which assumes that if we are honest the tests will show that we’re miserable failures. When schools report higher test scores, though, it’s to “avoid conflict,” and not a sign of success, or reasonable goal setting.
In the WSJ article we’re told that expectations are managed to avoid “negative publicity” and protect weak growth. In the economy, therefore, it’s all about looking on the bright side, but in education, it’s hard choices, and glass-half-empty thinking. I’m not defending the status quo, or investing in rose-colored glasses stock (which would be taking a beating right now in the US). What I’m saying is that the way the market principle metaphor is being applied to education doesn’t really reflect real world conditions. Corporations are not required to set high targets and risk disappointing investors, who might then be taking their money somewhere else - which is the rationale for school vouchers. Instead, companies do set lower targets to keep people happy and make themselves look good.
And while I’m on this topic, I’ll note that the White House is using market psychology in its assessment of our achievements in Iraq, as in: Administration Shaving Yardstick for Iraq Gains. We might join Kevin Carey in saying that “Their performance looks better in the eyes of the public and they’re able to avoid conflict with organized political interests.” We call it spin, which is how the real world seems to function now.
This is all politics, isn’t it?
Marco Polo wrote,
This is all politics, isn’t it? And politics is all about perceptions, not about reality. I’m inclined to think the WSJ article you mention is also political, designed to manipulate perceptions and/or opinion. Treat with suspicion. Wear thick gloves. Call an adult (oh, wait, adults are wot wrote this…)
Link | July 9th, 2007 at 7:18 am
Doug Noon wrote,
This sentence explains everything: There’s a particular reason for stock investors to be edgy: This year, earnings growth at large U.S. businesses has clearly slowed.
Link | July 9th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Borderland » Blog Archive » Soldiers, on Politics and the War in Iraq wrote,
[...] They don’t all agree, naturally, because this war is one sorry mess. Every politician in DC, and anyone else who recognizes the need for us to get a grip on the situation should think about what they have to say. I had to resist the urge to copy and paste repeatedly, there are so many gems among these articles. However, Ackerman did say something that ties into my previous post: [...]
Link | July 9th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Brian wrote,
So. We agree that the system is broken. Most of us can see the product that public schools are turning out and figure out that the system has failed our children. Others need to see studies, or read fringe books published by socialist professors who have never raised a child and think unfettered access to abortion is the pinnacle of modern civilization to be persuaded of the fact.
How do we fix it? More of same? Perhaps commission some studies that everyone will ignore? Find a communist who has written a fringe book and implement his views?
Those aren’t the answers. But you may have inadvertently stumbled into the obvious answer that you are purposefully trying to belittle and ignore.
Your are correct. The current system does not conform to real world conditions. Not even close. Giving the investor (taxpayers) the option of investing their money elsewhere is but a baby step in the right direction.
Link | July 9th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Doug Noon wrote,
I’m not ignoring the fact that you’re dissatisfied with something, but you don’t exactly say what or why that is, which makes it hard to respond. I’ve raised 4 kids, all doing well in the “system” for what it’s worth. The system isn’t failing all the children, just the ones who start out behind and then drop further back. We could do better for the kids with advantages, too, if we could pick and choose which ones we want to work with - like a business.
I’m not ignoring the fact that burdening schools with more layers of unproductive bureaucratic oversight is as frustrating to the institutional mission as it would be to any business. What if a business had to hire any person who applied?
How do you know, if you take all the “steps” (I’m curious what they all are) that they’d work for everyone? Because that’s the challenge, isn’t it?
Incidentally, I’m happy to engage you as long as you don’t confuse intelligence with point of view, or content with style. As a public school teacher, I have to deal with contrary opinions all the time, and I do think about what people say to me.
We may even see one another on the FYSA fields, or somewhere. You never know.
Link | July 9th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Brian wrote,
As a nurse I can agree that burdening the system with well meaning but ultimately pointless bureaucracy brings down the whole institution, and breeds nothing but inefficiencies and unnecessary costs. In the case of schools such regulations are brought about by politicians who are responding to the outcry by parents and society who feel helpless trying to reform their local schools. The local school boards are so dominated by teacher’s unions and socialist do-gooders in general that citizens just assume the local school board will be hostile to their gripes. Unfortunately state and federal politicians see the disgruntled parents and try to score political points by taking up their issues. This has the effect of preventing locals from reclaiming their school boards.
The notion that government has to lay out every option for every child is nonsense. In the words of a great man, “Government is the problem, not the solution.” Furthermore, the notion that only bad kids will be in the public schools if parents are given the choice of where to send their kids is nonsense. The free market model works. Public schools will be forced to reform themselves if the market is allowed to function. If they don’t the school will be shut down for lack of attendance and a building becomes available for someone who can run it better.
And I would be honored to meet you someday Doug.
Maybe we could play a game of Settlers of Catan.
Link | July 9th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Doug Noon wrote,
I appreciate your response. It helps me to understand your point of view. The regulations that we have to live with are not only the result of outcry from “helpless” parents. Many were put in place by social reformers who saw a need for schools to provide access to services for kids who weren’t being adequately served by the regular program. Is that what you mean by “socialists?”
Compulsory attendance laws were passed state-by-state between 1852 and 1918, and they weren’t very popular in a lot of places. The Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act require us to provide services for learning disabled and economically disadvantaged students. And bussing Black students from racially segregated schools into traditionally all-White schools was intended to correct a social ill. I wouldn’t call any of those things “pointless,” but they have had a major impact on schools, and they’ve made the work more challenging for teachers.
The current accountability regime, however, is a reform that’s not going to result in better service. You seem to admit as much when you say that federal and state officials have removed control of the schools from parents and local officials. Your feeling of alienation from the school board is understandable, but I wonder if you’ve ever approached them with a problem or a concern. Did you know that parent protests (late ’80’s-early’90’s) about an elementary-level reading text had a major impact on our curriculum review process?
I’m especially interested in your idea that federal and state officials are more responsive to parents’ concerns than school boards. If apathy is the cause, doesn’t that suggest we should begin to participate more actively? I seriously doubt that we could ever influence curriculum or program-level decisions made by the feds as easily as when we deal with the local board. You’re correct; the system does break down when people don’t participate.
Ronald Reagan said that government is the problem. The free market model has created unprecedented wealth for our country, true enough. It has done so, though, with the participation of government and the unionization of workers.
Applying market principles to schools, saying that they’ll “have to reform themselves” to let the market function, isn’t the same as telling them what to do and then shutting them down when they don’t measure up. That doesn’t sound like a free market to me. The school where I work is a Title 1 school, and we are at full enrollment with a lot of people attending from out of the attendance area - because they like what we do for kids there. One of the things that makes the school attractive to people is that we work hard to build a cohesive community for a diverse student population. Parents may not care about test scores as much as other things that aren’t officially measured.
The idea that only the bad kids will be in public schools if parents are given a choice may, in fact, be nonsense. But the idea that the free market model works for schools might also be nonsense. This reform movement that calls for 100% proficiency by the year 2014 is unprecedented. No other society has ever attempted or achieved such a thing. Standards don’t necessarily change what we do, and tests don’t necessarily reflect what’s actually accomplished, which was the point of what I wrote here.
You might be surprised to hear that I doubt schools will, or should, survive in their current configuration for much longer. Political problems like those we’re hashing out here, and social problems - which contribute to the political problems - are pushing an antiquated system beyond its design limits. I’d like to see a system of smaller charter schools that are managed and supported by parent and teacher communities. It’s a market-based solution, but not the same as what’s being pushed at us now. I have to say, though, that charter schools are not a panacea, and they come with all the attendant baggage that the current top-heavy model has to offer. Working out our differences and ensuring equitable opportunities for everyone will be a problem in any case.
Take a look at John Gatto, who wrote a book called The Underground History of American Education. If nothing else, read the page called I Quit, I Think, because it sounds pretty close to the way that I feel.
I’m going to keep banging away on this subject. Your comments push my thinking, and that’s fine with me because I’m just here trying to work out a few ideas.
Link | July 10th, 2007 at 1:13 am
Brian wrote,
Just a couple points. (Which may or may not be relavant to your points)
Federal involvement in the school system has always impacted schools negatively, even if the involvement has nothing but the best intentions, and short term benefits. Bussing is but one example. Should schools have been integrated? Of course. But bussing created other social problems in its wake. Part of the problem with federal regulations is that they never end. There is no yardstick by which to measure the success or failure of bussing and as a policy it never goes away. Everyone is left feeling frustrated working within the federal law that may no longer be appropriate for a given school district.
The notion that the federal school lunch program (for example) is needed because some kids won’t eat well is nothing but pure socialism. The lunch program is the major hook by which school districts are subjected to federal strings. The proper role of gov’t (and not the federal gov’t) is to protect malnourished kids by taking them away from their parents and placing them in suitable environment, instead of feeding them and ensuring that they go back to their abusive/drug addicted/irresponsible parents every afternoon after school. The argument that that approach will lead to fewer kids going to school or receiving proper healthcare is a red herring to continue a socialist policy that has nothing but the best of intentions. Yet the policy puts schools in the pocket of the federal government, subject to the whims of social engineers in DC, New York, California, takes away local control and tends to bring education down to the lowest common denominator. This creates new problems which the feds attempt to fix, which leads to new problems, etc.
I think we can at least agree on this in principle, if not each point.
Sub point. And I realize this point will cause more outrage than any other point I might make. But I’ll make it anyway.
With increased gov’t funding for students who meet some standard that makes them disabled, such as autism, FAS, ADD, etc. schools are doing no favors to students who they are attempting to get into special classes on the basis of some nebulous diagnosis. Yes, some students need special help, sometimes with all subjects, more often with only a few subjects, but this drive to have as many students labeled as disabled in an effort to increase funding is so sad as to make me tearful when I think of some examples I am personally familiar with.
Another point. The requirement to pass a standardized test to graduate in Alaska was not implemented by the voters to hold students accountable. As I recall the requirement was passed by the voters because schools were unresponsive to parent’s concerns, and parents generally felt helpless against their schools which were focusing too much on social/political indoctrination and too little on the three “R”s.
In recent years school districts have managed to frame the debate in such a manner as to indicate the testing is punishing students, not a tool by which to hold school districts accountable as it was intended.
Another point. Like it or not the free market is taking steps to fix the problem, whether it is perceived or real. Every year for the last 10 (aprox) the FNSSD has predicted an increase in student enrollment for the following year. Every year for the last 10 the enrollment has decreased from the previous year. Fairhill Christian School is having to add classrooms, other private schools are springing up, and home schooling is going through the roof. People are voting with their money. My kids attend private school and I will put their “schooling” up against any student in the area. In addition I don’t have to worry that they are learning about abortion, condoms, disrespect for the President, or saving the planet from those evil Americans, and I can rest assured they will get a swat if they misbehave.
Last point. We have a national and successful example of school vouchers on which to base an elementary school voucher system. Even though the program is administered by the feds and could be better administered it is still a good example.
That system is the federal student loan program. Students can apply for federal money and use that money at a private or public institution. Students can use that money for trade school or advanced degrees. Competition thrives in institutions of higher learning, mainly due to the federal loans (vouchers of a sort, if you will) and the system is not broken. Students who want to go to a crazy liberal hippie school can, and although the choices are more limited conservative students can find a campus that is better suited to them.
Link | July 10th, 2007 at 4:21 am
Doug Noon wrote,
Now we’re getting somewhere.
We agree on the principle that federal involvement in whatever is generally problematic. But then, we live in Alaska, and we have lots of examples. Are you a member of the Alaska Independence Party, by any chance? Just wondering.
Nobody I know wants to have as many students as possible labeled as disabled. Too many kids do get labeled, though, I agree with you there. Our whole society is label crazy, and making rash generalizations is one of the symptoms.
The Goals 2000 Act was conceived by the first Bush (’89) administration and passed into law in 1994. It was never voted on by voters. It sounded like a good thing to people who wanted to make schools better. State legislatures endorse it, even if they don’t like it, partly because federal funding is contingent on following those guidelines. The feds have no real authority over state Depts. of ED. The principle of federal involvement mentioned above applies.
You can (of course) send your kids to school wherever you want. I have experience with private Catholic schools where I got my elementary education in the ’60’s, and where I worked when I started teaching. The education that private schools give is heavily dependent on the population served, and arguments that their results or methods would somehow scale as a model for public schools is debatable. It’s a core problem in the debate, in fact.
When I was in school, the nuns did a good job of convincing us that public schools and even other Christian schools were very bad places. My teachers were very good at indoctrination, discipline, and basic skills; not so good at teaching critical thinking - except that as a result, I developed a strong belief in the principle of self determination.
You no doubt see me as a crazy liberal - or worse. But here’s the main thing: I’m committed to making my classroom work for every kid in there the best I can. And sometimes, often in fact, I feel like a hypocrite because I have to do things that don’t work for all of them. I doubt we’ll agree on the particulars of many things. I assure you, though, that I’ve never taught anyone to disrespect anything or anyone - even people I disagree with.
I think I understand where you’re coming from now, and I appreciate you taking the time to break it down for me. Some of the difficulty we have is a rhetorical (framing) problem, and the rest is a matter of significant differences in values. I suspect, however, that we have some ideas in common, too, which is kind of interesting to me, given the differences.
Link | July 10th, 2007 at 8:28 am