Langhorne for Forbes, “Five Reasons Why Independent Charters Outperform In-District Autonomous Schools”

Over the past 15 years, cities across the country have experienced rapid growth in the number of public charter schools serving their students. Charter schools are public schools operated by independent organizations, usually nonprofits. They are freed from many of the rules that constrain district-operated schools. In exchange for increased autonomy, they are normally held accountable for their performance by their authorizers, who close or replace them if they fail to educate children. Most are schools of choice, and unlike magnet schools in traditional districts, they are not allowed to select their students. If too many students apply, they hold lotteries to see who gets in.

The charter formula – autonomy, accountability, diversity of learning models, choice and operation by nonprofits – is transforming urban education. In states with strong charter laws and equally strong authorizers, charter schools have produced impressive students gains, especially in schools with high-minority, high-poverty populations.

Recently, districts from Boston to Los Angeles have tried to increase student achievement by replicating parts of this formula, in particular giving their school leaders more autonomy.

Continue reading at Forbes.

Osborne & Langhorne for The 74, “Can Urban Districts Get Charter-Like Performance With Charter-Lite Schools? The Answer Lies in Autonomy”

Over the past 15 years, cities across the country have experienced rapid growth in the number of public charter schools serving their students. In states with strong charter laws and equally strong authorizers, charter schools have produced impressive students gains, especially in schools with high-minority, high-poverty populations.

According to the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) 2015 study on 41 urban regions, the academic gains made by students in charter schools increase with each year students spend at the school. Those who have spent four or more years at a charter gain the equivalent of 108 more days of learning in math and 72 more days in reading each year than their traditional public school peers. In other words, they learn about 50 percent more every year than those with similar demographics and past test scores who stayed in a district school.

Urban districts have spent a lot of time and money trying to compete with the charter sector’s formula for success — autonomy, choice, diversity of school designs, and real accountability. Recently, however, many districts have attempted to replicate parts of it instead. Districts from Boston to Denver to Los Angeles have tried to spur charter-like innovation and increase student achievement by granting school leaders more autonomy.

Continue reading at The 74.

Can Urban Districts Get Charter-like Performance With Charter-lite Schools?

Over the past 15 years, cities across the country have experienced rapid growth in the number of public charter schools serving their students. When implemented with fidelity, the charter formula – autonomy, choice, diversity of school designs, and real accountability –produces continuous improvements in school quality, with impressive student gains in charter schools serving high-minority, high-poverty populations.

Facing competition from public charters, urban school districts from Boston to Denver to Los Angeles began to look for ways to increase student achievement in their schools. Some attempted to spur charter-like innovation by granting traditional public school leaders more autonomy. District-run “autonomous” schools are a hybrid model – a halfway point between charters and traditional public schools. They’re still operated and supported by district employees, but they can opt out of many district policies and, in some models, union contracts.

The theory behind school-level autonomy is that students can achieve more if those who understand their needs best – namely, principals and teachers, not the central office – make the decisions that affect their learning. While the amount of autonomy afforded district run autonomous schools differs from district to district, quite a few have invested in this strategy. In this report – which is based on analysis of test scores from 2015 and 2016 and interviews with participants in Boston, Memphis, Denver, and Los Angeles – we will examine different models, look at their results, and draw out lessons for other districts considering an autonomy strategy.

 

Langhorne for Forbes, “The Teacher-Powered Schools Movement: Transforming Teachers From Industrial Workers To Professionals”

Julie Cook was ready to leave teaching. She’d worked in both urban and suburban districts and in three different states. No matter where she taught, she ended up frustrated with the lack of autonomy given to, and professionalism expected from, teachers.

Top-down policies dictated what she taught, on what timeline, and how her students were assessed. Supervisors didn’t understand why she wanted to create curriculum. And her colleagues treated teaching like a by-the-hour job, rather than a profession.

“They clocked in and out, presented information, and left the rest up to the powers that be,” she says.

In 2002, just as she’d finally decided to leave the field, Cook was offered a position at Souderton Charter School Collaborative, a teacher-powered school in Souderton, Pennsylvania.

“Teachers at our school have full or partial autonomy over our professional development, budget, curriculum, assessments, teacher evaluations, school policies, scheduling, and hiring,” she explains. “I was invited to create, decide, collaborate, and lead. I no longer felt crushed.”

She’s been teaching there ever since.

 

Continue reading at Forbes.

Langhorne for The Washington Post, “Following New Orleans’s Lead on Charter-School Education”

The big moments of historical importance don’t go unremarked, but quieter milestones often pass with little notice unless we stop to commemorate them and note their significance. On July 1, one of those modest but meaningful events will occur when New Orleans marks a change that might sound like a dry bureaucratic reshuffling, but is in fact a remarkable event in the history of American education.

Recall that nearly 13 years ago, one of the effects of the Hurricane Katrinacataclysm was to largely wipe out the city’s abysmal public schools. New Orleans’s educational system was essentially rebuilt from the ground up as a laboratory for charter schools — not a school district with a few charters sprinkled among traditional institutions, but an almost wholly charter-filled system largely run by the state of Louisiana.

The Recovery School District experiment proved successful; New Orleans public schools have improved faster than those of any other city in the nation over the past decade. But 80 percent of the schools were run by the state’s Recovery School District. An indication of the RSD’s success — and of New Orleans’s resurgence as a thriving metropolitan center — is the state’s decision to hand over responsibility for the school district to a locally elected school board on July 1.

Continue reading at The Washington Post.

Langhorne for Forbes, “Mohammed Choudhury on Empowered Educators, Controlled Choice, And The Third Way For Urban Districts”

Big things are quietly happening in San Antonio Independent School District (SAISD).

Ever since Pedro Martinez became superintendent in 2015, creating innovative schools and putting kids first have been at the heart of the district’s values.

Under Martinez’s leadership, the district has begun to create real change and build a system of great schools that provides educational opportunities for all families.

One of the district’s crucial steps in this educational journey was hiring Mohammed Choudhury as Chief Innovation Officer. Before coming to San Antonio, Choudhury served as the founding director of Dallas Independent School District’s Office of Transformation and Innovation.

In the year and a half since he’s been in San Antonio, Choudhury has been overseeing a new innovation zone through which the district is using a growing network of in-district charters as a vehicle to build socioeconomically diverse learning environments and to ensure that all students have access to best-fit schools. In order to prevent the creation of “islands of affluence” and ensure that high-needs families have equitable access, the district has implemented controlled choice for its open enrollment choice schools and programs.

Continue reading at Forbes.

Langhorne for The Washington Post, “D.C. Graduation Fraud? Not in the Charter Schools.”

For the past six months, scandal after scandal has come to light in the nation’s capital as the media’s interrogation lamps have shone on D.C. Public Schools.

In November, WAMU exposed a graduation scandal at Ballou High School, leading the Office of the State Superintendent to launch an investigation into DCPS.  The investigation revealed district-wide complicity in a systemic culture that pressured teachers to pass students regardless of their attendance or academic performance. The report concluded that one in three 2017 DCPS graduates were awarded diplomas in violation of district policies.

Best-case scenario, 67 percent of the class of 2018 graduated. That’s a significant drop from the 73 percent rate the district claimed in 2017.

What’s happened in DCPS is tragic — not only that the number of students graduating declined but also that DCPS has been graduating students who aren’t prepared for life beyond school.

Yet there is a story of real academic progress in the nation’s capital. It’s the story of the other public schools, the ones educating nearly 50 percent of public school students. It’s the story of D.C.’s charter schools.

Continue reading at The Washington Post.

Langhorne for Forbes, “Teachers Village: One City’s Innovative Solution to The Problem of Teacher Retention”

In many cities across the nation, home values and rents have risen so high they are pricing teachers out of the market. Young teachers either spend the majority of their paychecks on rent, deal with long daily commutes, or leave the profession. In a survey of public school teachers who left the profession in 2012, two thirds of those who said they would consider returning rated increased salaries as an important factor in that decision.

Raising salaries is difficult for districts, given the twin burdens of state funding cuts since the Great Recession and skyrocketing costs for health care and pensions. But innovators in Newark, New Jersey, have found a solution: a new “Teachers Village” that gives teachers subsidized rents in the center of the city.

Teachers receive discounts of seven to 15% off units’ market rate, and currently seventy percent of the residents are educators. Twenty percent of the apartments are discounted for individuals earning up to 80% of Newark’s Area Median Income, while the remaining 10 percent are rented at market rates.

Continue reading at Forbes.

Langhorne for The 74, “Independence, Assertiveness, Ability to Correct Others – Behavioral Traits of Top-Performing Teachers”

When asked about my education in a traditional public high school, I always talk about Mr. Gebler’s pre-calculus class. I remember it well for two reasons. One, I struggled to earn a C. Two, his standards — like his eccentric behavior and dedication to students — were so exceptional that I actually retained the content after the school year ended.

A draft research report by workplace survey company Pairin confirms what I’d always known: Mr. Gebler was a top-tier teacher.

Pairin recently analyzed survey results from 9,359 teachers in traditional public schools and 390 in public charter schools. It found that certain behavioral attributes — motivation, independence, and the ability to correct others — correlate with high performance. Mr. Gebler had all of these.

Today, however, many educators who share these behavioral qualities aren’t working in our nation’s traditional public schools. They’re working in charter schools.

“When we look at the aggregated survey results, more charter school teachers share the qualities that we’ve found in all top-performing teachers,” says Pairin CEO Michael Simpson. “What we’re trying to figure out is why trends in behavior differ between these two sectors and how we can help teachers overall be more successful.”

Continue reading at The 74.

Innovating Out of Student Debt

A “College Finance Innovation Fund” could accelerate ideas to lower debt and make schools more accountable for their graduates’ success

For many students, the burden of student debt lingers years after leaving college, dragging down their finances and household security. New federal data find that, 12 years after enrollment, students with debt still owed, on average, two-thirds of what they had borrowed – and as many as 27 percent had defaulted.

Colleges, however, face no equivalent long-term financial stake in their students’ education: their obligations are done once the tuition is paid and the last exam is graded. Except perhaps for the pressure to put on a good show for U.S. News & World Report’s college rankings, schools have little incentive to ensure their students can land good jobs with decent pay – let alone graduate. Students bear the full risk of their investment and cope with the fallout if things don’t pan out as planned.

This lopsided burden of risk is one reason a dramatic expansion in financial aid – i.e., “free college” – can’t solve the crisis in college affordability. Schools would see no need to rein in their costs or to share the risks of investing in education with their students. In fact, the opposite. If the government is willing to pick up more of the tab for students, there’s no reason that tab wouldn’t simply grow – with potentially no reduction in student debt.

Income share agreements’ could help more students avoid debt – with the right regulation

Students, policymakers, and members of the American public have increasingly acknowledged the crippling impact of student loans for many college graduates. In response, a growing number of schools are offering an alternative financing option to students: so-called “income share agreements.” Instead of taking out a loan and paying it back over time with interest, students with income share agreements (ISAs) commit to pay a fixed percentage of their income for a specified number of years after graduation in exchange for tuition. Under these agreements, graduates may end up paying more than or less than the total amount of funding they received in the first place — their obligation depends on their income.

Although ISAs are still relatively uncommon in the higher education landscape, they are gaining traction with an increasing number of colleges. The most notable participant so far is Indiana’s Purdue University, whose “Back a Boiler” program uses philanthropic donations and funds from the school’s endowment[1] to offer ISAs to hundreds of students. So far, the school’s ISAs have totaled more than $6 million in financing.[2] Other schools endorsing income share agreement programs include Point Loma Nazarene University in California, Lackawanna College in Pennsylvania, and Clarkson University in New York.[3] In addition to colleges and universities, career-focused institutions such as coding schools are also adopting the model.[4]

ISAs are funded either directly by the school or administered by third-party companies such as the Virginia-based start-up Vemo. Proponents say that ISAs give colleges “skin in the game” as far as how their graduates fare after school, because they have an incentive to ensure that students obtain well-paying jobs. The same is true for ISA companies such as Vemo.[5]

But as interest in ISAs grows, there is so far very little legal guidance as to how these agreements should be structured. With more private investors entering this space, public policy should protect participants from unfair terms and facilitate clear, legally legitimate agreements between funders and students. Setting reasonable regulations around income share agreements would also help to develop a robust market for this product and ensure that “bad actors” don’t cripple the market for ISAs before it takes root.

A promising proposal to set a regulatory framework for ISAs is the bipartisan “Investing in Student Success Act of 2017” (S.268), sponsored by Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Todd Young (R-IN) in the Senate and its companion bill, the “ISA Act of 2017” (H.R.3145), sponsored by Reps. Luke Messer (R-IN), Jared Polis (D-CO), Trey Hollingsworth (R-IN), Jackie Walorski (R-IN), Erik Paulsen (R-MN), Jim Banks (R-IN), Krysten Sinema (D-AZ), and Randy Hultgren (R-IL) in the House. Both bills establish standardized terms for an ISA, including the percentage of income and duration of payment required of the graduate, terms for potential prepayment, and an explicit definition of income. Requirements such as these will ensure the creation of a uniform financial product with legal certainty for both students and institutions.

The Senate and House proposals also establish some protections for graduates regarding their ISA payments. The bills establish a “maximum commitment factor” of 2.25, which is calculated by multiplying the percentage of income required in the ISA contract by the number of years left in the agreement. By capping commitment in this manner, the legislation would prevent lenders from requiring both a very high percentage of income and long duration of payments from graduates. The bills also dictate that graduates will not be required to make any payments during periods of time when their incomes fall below a certain level ($15,000 adjusted for inflation annually in the Senate bill; 150 percent of the poverty line for a single person in the House bill). This is a key component in why ISAs are an appealing financing option for many people: during sustained periods of financial hardship, graduates are protected. The bills also establish an overall maximum commitment level for students who might have multiple ISAs (e.g. for undergrad and graduate school).

While a good start, the bills could also include explicit protections from discrimination in the administration of ISAs. While proponents argue that ISAs would allow more minority and low-income students to be able to afford higher education, skeptics argue that ISA investors could still find ways to discriminate against certain students. Specifically, “one of the major arguments against ISAs is that private investors could refuse to fund certain high-risk pools of students, such as minorities, first-generation students or those pursuing lower-paying careers.”[6] Again, regulation is key here. Through clear terms in legislation, Congress could set expectations about which students can get ISAs on what terms. By emphasizing forward-looking prospects after graduation, ISA requirements can more effectively support students coming from many different backgrounds.

ISAs are not a silver bullet for solving the problem of college affordability. For this reason, PPI has also proposed a “College Finance Innovation Fund” which can help test, evaluate, and bring to scale innovations such as ISAs — as well as other new ideas that emerge. Among other things, such a fund could help support research to examine who gets ISAs on what terms, how these programs impact the ability of low-income students to build a credit history,[7] and what implications ISAs have for the diversity of the federal loan portfolio.[8]

In the meantime, students are eager for alternatives to traditional student loans, and ISAs offer a promising way to help many young people supplement or replace their existing funding for school. Smart regulation can help ensure that ISAs live up to their potential.


[1] Allesandra Lanza, “Alternative to Student Loans: Income-Share Agreements,” US News & World Report, 2018, https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/student-loan-ranger/articles/2018-01-24/alternative-to-student-loans-income-share-agreements.

[2] Danielle Douglas-Gabriel, “A new way emerges to cover college tuition. But is it a better way?” Washington Post, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/a-new-way-emerges-to-cover-college-tuition-but-is-it-a-better-way/2017/12/31/6519d100-d9c9-11e7-b859-fb0995360725_story.html?utm_term=.453e57d3eee3.

[3] Danielle Douglas-Gabriel, “A new way emerges to cover college tuition. But is it a better way?” Washington Post, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/a-new-way-emerges-to-cover-college-tuition-but-is-it-a-better-way/2017/12/31/6519d100-d9c9-11e7-b859-fb0995360725_story.html?utm_term=.453e57d3eee3.

[4] Frank Chaparro, “Investors are paying college students’ tuition — but they want a share of future income in return,” Business Insider, 2017, https://www.businessinsider.com/income-share-agreements-help-students-pay-for-college-loan-alternative-2017-3.

[5] Amelia Friedman, “Why One University Is Sharing the Risk on Student Debt,” The Atlantic, 2017, https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/03/why-one-university-is-sharing-the-risk-on-student-debt/519570/.

[6] Allesandra Lanza, “Alternative to Student Loans: Income-Share Agreements,” US News & World Report, 2018, https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/student-loan-ranger/articles/2018-01-24/alternative-to-student-loans-income-share-agreements.

[7] Michael Horn, “Profiling the Rise of Income Share Agreements in Higher Ed,” Forbes, 2017, https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelhorn/2017/06/15/profiling-the-rise-of-income-share-agreements-in-higher-ed/#14a4108c5fee.

[8] Clare McCann and Sophie Nguyen, “Income Share Agreements Aren’t a Solution to Student Loan Debt,” New America, 2017, https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/income-share-agreements-arent-solution-student-debt/.

Reinventing America’s Schools Project Update: Introducing Curtis Valentine

WASHINGTON—The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) today announced Curtis Valentine as the new Deputy Director of the Reinventing America’s Schools project. Valentine will work with Director David Osborne to promote our long-term vision for 21st century education systems, characterized by autonomous, accountable, and equitable public schools of choice.
 
Valentine’s work will focus on education and advocacy, helping the project organize workshops, conferences, and meetings with and for the education community. “I am more than delighted to have Curtis on board,” said Osborne. “He brings years of advocacy for education reform to the table, along with the irreplaceable experience of sitting on a local school board. Equally important, he comes to the job with deep knowledge of education policy, in this country and abroad.”
 
A graduate of Morehouse College, Valentine holds a Masters of Public Policy from The Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He has 15 years of education policy experience, having served as a language arts teacher, the founding Executive Director of the Maryland Campaign for Achievement Now (MarylandCAN), a fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations, and more recently as Executive Director for State Relations with Connections Education. Valentine is also an at-large member of the Prince George’s County (MD) Public School Board of Education and an adjunct professor in American Government and Politics at Prince George’s Community College.
 
“It’s such an exciting time to join the fight for public education, and there is no better place to be than PPI’s Reinventing America’s School Project,” said Valentine. “As a father to two public school students and the spouse of a public school principal, this fight is personal, and I’m looking forward to the change our work will bring about for children like mine.”
 
Reinventing America’s Schools is thrilled to have such a talented communicator, with such a wealth of policy knowledge, teaching experience, and advocacy work, joining our team.

Which colleges offer three-year bachelor’s and why aren’t they working?

Despite all the attention it has received in recent years, the cost of college continues to rise at both private and public institutions across the United States.

According to data from the College Board, average tuition and fees for a public four-year college is $20,770 if in-state or $35,420 for out-of-state, and $46,950 for private, non-profit institutions. This represents increases of 13, 12, and 15 percent respectively since 2014, when the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) first called for institutions of higher learning to make a three-year bachelor’s degree the norm and cut the cost of college by 25 percent.

American college students are facing a triple whammy – out-of-control college costs, record levels of student debt, and declining real earnings for college graduates. Yet politicians from both the left and the right have done nothing to fix the problem. Republicans actually proposed cutting student aid during the debate over tax reform. Meanwhile, some Democrats are pushing “free college,” which – while well intentioned – would do nothing to restrain the rising cost of college (in fact, just the opposite) or ensure Americans access to the best colleges and universities.

 

Why it Matters That Public Charters Dominated the 2018 US News Best High School Rankings

This morning, U.S. News and World Report released its 2018 list of the nation’s best high schools. For the past few years, public charters have been slowly taking over the top 10 spots on the list; this year, they dominated them.

For those of us who believe in the power of public school choice to bring dramatic change to America’s education system, the timing of the release couldn’t have been better. After all, it’s National Charter School Week, and what better way to highlight the success of public charters than by celebrating that seven of  America’s 10 best high schools are charter schools, including the top six spots.

Of course, rankings should always be taken with a grain of salt, and U.S. Newsmethodology for ranking schools differs from the method used by The Washington Post for its “most challenging high schools” list. Creating performance frameworks for schools is difficult, and there’s alway room for quibbling over rankings and ratings.

Regardless, we shouldn’t ignore that public charter schools were the only non-selective public high schools to make it into the top 10 spots on the U.S. News list

District-run “selective” schools are allowed to evaluate applications and select students based on academic criteria and other admission requirements. Public charters, on the other, must take all students who apply. If a charter school is oversubscribed, it holds a lottery to see who gets in, giving preference only to siblings of current students and, in some cases, students who are economically disadvantaged.

The only three traditional public schools to earn a spot on the U.S. News top 10 list have admission requirements. Of the top 20 spots on the list, nine of the 11 traditional public schools have them. The other two traditional public schools in the top 20 use lottery enrollment systems similar to those of public charters.

Personally, I don’t have an ideological objection to academically selective public schools; however, I think placing these high schools in the same category as the rest of America’s public schools doesn’t make for a fair comparison.

When high schools require students to complete any combination of testing, grade reporting, interviews, or teacher recommendations as part of the admissions process, they are attempting to select for a specific subset of students – the brightest and most motivated. To some extent, the most difficult work has already been done. These schools are only admitting the students deemed most likely to succeed based on their previous academic and behavioral records. America’s other public schools, including public charters, must teach all kids, regardless of their abilities or behavioral issues.

A mere five years ago, on the 2013 list, seven of the top 10 schools had selective admissions processes. (The other three were two charters and a traditional public school with a lottery admission). In a short time – because of the growth and success of public charters – we’ve seen those numbers reverse.

Charters competing with, and outranking, these selective schools shows that America now has public high schools capable of educating all students, not only those marked as highly qualified before they walk through the doors.

If states and districts continue to invest in growing 21stcentury school systems that utilize the charter formula of autonomy, accountability, and choice, we can have more of these schools. And maybe, one day, America can live up the promise of providing a rigorous and enriching public school for every child – not just for those who test into one.

Osborne and Langhorne for The 74, “NAEP Scores Show D.C. Is a Leader in Educational Improvement – With Powerful Lessons for Other Cities”

The latest edition of the Nation’s Report Card — the 2017 National Assessment of Educational Progress — got a lot of ink last week. While results nationally were a yawn, the scores from Washington, D.C., hold powerful lessons for other cities. Together, D.C. charter and district public schools have improved faster than those of any state over the past decade, by far, while district schools have improved faster than those of any other urban district that takes the exam.

NAEP is widely considered a more reliable measure than state tests because there are no stakes attached, so schools have no incentive to cheat or spend time preparing their students. But because the random sample of students who take the test changes every two years, short-term results tend to bounce around. Looking at a decade or more smooths things out and provides a more trustworthy gauge.

In D.C., that takes us back to the pivotal year of 2007, when the city council did away with the elected school board and gave power over D.C. Public Schools to the mayor, who appointed Michelle Rhee as chancellor. Since then, DCPS has embraced some of the most profound reforms of any traditional district.

Meanwhile, D.C.’s charter sector, which has grown to educate 47 percent of public school students in the city, has won plaudits as the “healthiest charter sector” in the country from the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.

So D.C. provides a fascinating laboratory. We can compare a rapidly improving traditional district to a vibrant charter sector.

 

Continue reading at The 74.

Osborne and Langhorne for US News, “Texas Has Ambitious Plans to Transform Urban Schools”

In public education, the nation’s fastest-improving cities have embraced both charter schools and charter-like “innovation” or “renaissance” schools: public schools with real autonomy (some run by nonprofit organizations), real accountability for performance (including closure if their students are falling too far behind), and a variety of learning models from which families can choose. Those rapidly improving cities include New Orleans, Washington, Denver, and Chicago.

Imagine the progress possible if a state decided to push its urban districts to emulate such models. Texas is doing just that, using carrots – including $120 million in grants and assistance over two years – and sticks to convince urban districts to embrace the new approach.

“I think Texas has used district-level incentives and implementation support for districts who want to move more towards 21st century school systems in a far more thoughtful way than any other state,” says Chris Barbic, who ran Tennessee‘s Achievement School District for its first four years and now invests in state efforts to turn around struggling districts and schools through his position at the Houston-based Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

Continue reading at US News.