Education Research
Explanation of source links: Throughout the research below, you will find links of three types. The first and most frequent type is to primary sources such as governmental agencies. The second is to nonprofit groups that generally use government data or their own research to support their philanthropic mission. We have tried to use the least biased of these, or when in doubt, we have identified their bias. The third is to articles in periodicals or newspapers that we find to be of interest. These are not meant to be construed as original sources, and in some cases may not be accessible, depending on a reader's frequency of prior visits to the linked periodical or newspaper.
What is the actual state of primary and secondary education in the US?
As referenced above, it is oversimplifying and misleading to generalize about US education based on averages or as a monolithic phenomenon. In fact, test results vary dramatically depending on different US districts, which is primarily a function of wealth.
This reality is demonstrated by the following chart displaying the basic standard of proficiency for eighth-grade students in math, reading, and science, according to the Department of Education:
Looking at a random sample of wealthier districts, it is easy to see a correlation between wealth and proficiency. Test results are compiled by the Global Report Card, created by the George W. Bush Institute.
Similarly, a random sampling of less wealthy communities yields a very different outcome:
So what do we know about education in poor communities?
Based on over 200 million standardized math and reading tests given to third- through eighth-graders nationwide between 2009 and 2012, research led by Sean Reardon of Stanford found that “school districts with the highest concentrations of poverty score an average of more than four grade levels below children in the richest districts.”
Why do poor communities perform worse than their wealthy counterparts?
Poor communities struggle with several disadvantages that affect the quality of education. For example, such communities have difficulty recruiting the most skilled teachers, classes are more likely to be interrupted by disruptive behavior, school days are shorter, and recess and other athletic activities are often unavailable, as are art and music programs and advanced placement courses. The research conducted by Sean Reardon found that many other factors are also at play, including the absence of preschool, the trauma of poverty, the lack of tutors, whether parents read to their children and supervise homework, and the emotional fallout from violence in a neighborhood.
In addition to all of these challenges, large city districts generally have more children who speak English as a second language (ESL) and more children with learning disabilities. These communities also spend more on bussing programs, and have lower-quality buildings, playgrounds, athletic facilities, and computers.
As a further example, to quote from the Boston Public Schools website, “At BPS, we are proud to be one of the most diverse school districts in the nation. Nearly one in every two students speaks a language other than English at home, and our students come from 139 different countries. One in five BPS students has a disability, and half are economically disadvantaged.” Clearly, BPS has a larger burden than do smaller, wealthier communities. Using Wellesley, MA, as an example in contrast, only 2.3% of students there are ESL, 5.8% are economically disadvantaged, and only 16% have disabilities.
In addition to these many burdens, large city public schools face greater managerial and political challenges. It is far more difficult to manage districts with the size, diversity, and complexity of Chicago (550,000 students) and NYC (1,100,000 students) than those like Wellesley, MA, which has only 5,000 students and is wealthier and more politically homogeneous.
Here are the scores of three large city public school systems:
Do poor communities always have fewer budgetary resources than wealthy communities?
The answer is nuanced, but, generally, yes. Spending per student in wealthier communities ($22,000) is almost twice the nation wide average of $13,119 per student.
There are two principal reasons for this. First, nearly half of school spending is raised locally and therefore subject to local wealth. In the 2013-2014 school year, for example, school spending totaled $704 billion. Of this total, 9% (or $64 billion) came from federal sources; 46% (or $323 billion) came from state sources; and 45% (or $316 billion) came from local sources. Given that in this example 45% of revenues are local, it follows that poor neighborhoods will have fewer resources than wealthy ones.
Reliance on local funding does differ across states. For example, in Illinois, revenues from federal, state, and local sources were 8%, 26%, and 66%, respectively. In Vermont, however, those same total revenues were 6%, 90%, and 4%. The latter approach has the benefit of leveling out spending across communities of different wealth levels.
Particular countries that set an example:
Japan, Germany, and Canada are all countries that provide sample solutions for the US. Each of these countries approaches the administration of education differently from the US.
In Japan, education is centrally controlled and all students, rich or poor, receive the same public access. In Germany and Canada, it is administered by local governments (in Canada this means by province, and in Germany it is by state of “Lander”) and funding is standard across every locality. All three countries consistently score in the very top of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) evaluation.
In Germany, every child is entitled to education and daycare beginning at age one. Kindergarten is provided to children ages three to five, most of which have full-day services. Germany has also greatly expanded its support for immigrant students, providing greater language training and academic support.
Canada not only ranks at the very top of PISA rankings but is further distinguished by the small disparity in scores across different socioeconomic, ethnic, and racial lines. Although results and practices differ somewhat across provinces, Canada has generally increased early childhood education, childcare services, and support for at-risk students. They have been creative in the use of technology, teacher training, experiential learning, and career-focused programs. They have also implemented major reforms to improve basic literacy and math skills.
Japan centrally manages primary education, with all citizens enjoying the same access to programming, regardless of location. It also emphasizes the development of emotional intelligence, provides “safety nets” for all students, and provides free access to early childhood education. In Japan, only 10% of science testing score variation can be explained by socioeconomic status, as compared to 13% on average across all OECD countries.
In summary, there are two primary approaches that set these countries apart from the US: First, there is little or no variation of funding across communities, and secondly, each country places far more emphasis on early childhood education and social/emotional learning.
What is the history of reform efforts in the US?
Early in his first term, President Ronald Reagan established the National Commission on Excellence in Education to assess the state of education in the US and to recommend an approach to improving it. In 1983, the commission presented its findings in a report entitled “A Nation at Risk: Imperative for Educational Reform.”
The findings of the commission were “grim,” if not devastating. The report began with the alarming statement, “Our nation is at risk.” It went on to say, “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves.”
The report provided considerable data supporting findings that test scores were rapidly declining, teachers were underpaid and under-trained, turnover was at destructive levels among educators, 23 million Americans were functionally illiterate, average high school standardized test scores were lower than they were in 1957, and only one-fifth of 17-year-old students had the ability to write a persuasive essay. The commission warned that even at that time, the US ran the risk of losing its technological superiority due to a failing public school system. In this respect, it had considerable foresight: “Technology is radically transforming a host of other occupations. They include healthcare, medical science, energy production, food processing, construction, and the building, repair, and maintenance of sophisticated scientific, educational, military and industrial equipment.”
The commission made several recommendations. Sadly, they were by and large never implemented and are still relevant 35 years later. In summary, the commission recommended the following:
Content: Across the board, increase the quality of English, mathematics, science, social studies, computer science, and foreign language content.
Increase standards across the board, increase the frequency of testing, and upgrade outdated “textbooks and other tools of learning.”
Lengthen the school day and year to the equivalent of other developed countries, meaning seven-hour school days and 200 to 220 school days a year.
Increase our focus on children who learn differently.
Increase standards for teachers, increase salaries accordingly, and adopt 11-month contracts to allow more time for professional development, programs for students with special needs, and curriculum development.
Following the commission’s report, President Reagan appointed William Bennett to be Secretary of Education and assigned him the responsibility of addressing its recommendations. Bennett and the National Education Association (commonly referred to as the teachers’ union) quickly reached a standoff, with the NEA attacking the report as an “assault on teaching and public education” having traditionally “resisted any talk of merit or performance pay.” Bennett, in turn, blamed the union as a “prime cause of the decline of public education.” Sadly, the reform recommendations of the commission were largely unimplemented—with the exception of a small increase in teacher compensation.
In running for president, George H. W. Bush proclaimed his desire to be the “Education President.” He convened a summit of the nation’s governors, including future President Bill Clinton (who already had credentials as an education reformer in his state of Arkansas). Clinton, a leading voice of the summit, pushed for “specific goals for reducing the disparity in achievement levels among children of different races, reducing high school dropout rates, and increasing the percentage of high school graduates going on to college.” Although the final report of the commission was less specific, it did increase public awareness of the poor quality of education in the US.
Campaigning for president in the year 2000, George W. Bush embraced education reform, highlighting the “soft bigotry of low expectations” that he thought characterized the basis of low teaching standards. In 2002, with the support of both Republicans and Democrats, he signed No Child Left Behind into law. The new law standardized testing nationwide and required states to quantify achievement gaps and implement plans to fix failing schools or lose federal funding.
In 2009, President Obama allocated a small portion ($4 billion) of the stimulus package to an effort at educational reform called the Race to the Top. Championed by then Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, the Race to the Top created a contest for the states that submitted the best specific plans for using data and testing to evaluate teachers, creating new systems for incentive compensation for teaching effectiveness, expanding the role of charter schools, and turning around failing schools. There would only be 10 to 15 winners, all of whom would divide up the total $4 billion. The program set off a storm of reform efforts and nationwide demand by citizens from all walks of life and geographies to implement the reforms championed by the winners. It also set off fierce resistance by the AFT, who continued to resist the growth of charter schools, relaxation of work rules, and greater accountability of their membership.
What are Charter Schools?
Charter schools are “private” schools that receive government funding but operate independently of the school district in which they are located. There are several different types of charter schools:
Independent charter schools are standalone operations. They’re not part of a larger organization and are often referred to as “Mom and Pop” charter schools. 53% of students attending charter schools attend an independent charter school.
Charter management organizations (CMOs) operate more than one charter school and control every aspect of the operations, including facilities, personnel, and curriculum. They can be nonprofit or for-profit.
Vendor operated schools (VOS) provide services under contract to at least three separate charter schools but do not directly hold the charter for the schools they serve. In some cases the VOS might be in charge of all aspects of the operation of a school. In others, they may only be in charge of a specific aspect. They provide services to no more than two schools in the same charter.
Hybrid charter schools have aspects of both a CMO and VOS. Only 1% of all charter schools are hybrids.
Charter schools generally have private boards and fundraise independently in support of their school. While they are responsible for meeting district education standards, they are generally free of the many restrictions imposed by districts and the AFT. As a result, charter schools generally have longer school days, are free to recruit and dismiss teachers based on their own standards, and are free to design classroom activities as they see fit. 43 states and the District of Columbia currently have laws authorizing charter schools; there are 5,786 such schools nationwide with 2.2 million students in attendance.
The evaluation of charter schools is in its infancy and is challenged by many things, including the variety of type, location, levels of poverty of their student body, etc. (The most extensive analysis that we have found was done by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University. Proponents find ample evidence showing that charters outperform public schools, while opponents are equally armed with data suggesting otherwise. Having said that, charters do tend to have far more demand in their communities than seats, suggesting that the perception at least of parents is that they are often superior alternatives to their local public school. States typically place limits on the number of charters that can be issued. Often, these limits are subject to public referendums. Traditionally, the AFT has also fought charter expansion. The following chart, included in the foregoing Stanford study, compares the profile of students attending charter schools to those in traditional public schools (TPS).
For our specific education recommendation, please click here.