Susan Pendergrass speaks with Andy Smarick, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, about Missouri’s education leadership shake-up and what comes next. They discuss how to find the right commissioner of education, why outside reformers tend to succeed where insiders struggle, what the dismantling of the US Department of Education means for state accountability systems, why public complacency about poor academic outcomes persists, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00):
Thank you so much, Andy Smarick, for joining once again on the Show-Me Institute Podcast. We love having you on and I appreciate you taking the time. You’re a busy man, so it’s really wonderful to have you back.

Andy Smarick (00:06):
I love being here. It’s a treat. Thank you for having me. I always like talking to you, but also anytime I get to talk about state-level education policy, it’s a treat.

Susan Pendergrass (00:19):
Well, I know that you have experience serving on a couple of state boards, both K-12 and higher ed. Just to bring you up to speed on what’s happening in Missouri: we have a relatively new governor, about a year in, and we had a state board of education where people stayed in expired seats, rubber-stamped decisions, and were very complacent, I feel comfortable saying. Our governor shook up that group and appointed new people who came in and said, what do you mean we don’t have bylaws? It was like, this is bananas. At the same time, the governor issued an executive order requiring letter grades on schools and districts, new school report cards. I don’t know exactly how everything went down, but our Commissioner of Education resigned, our Deputy Commissioner resigned, and our president of the state board of education resigned, all in about one week. So we are now straightening things out and there is a new board president. But this new, relatively new board now has the task of finding a commissioner. The way things have happened in Missouri is we always get a new commissioner from the ranks of the state education agency, maybe from the legislature, always from Missouri. Just a real this-is-how-we’ve-done-it mentality. And we have not been big reformers. No Chiefs for Change in Missouri. Like a lot of states, our reading scores for young kids are tanking, forty percent below basic for third and fourth graders. We have a state accountability system called the Missouri School Improvement Plan in which 516 of our 520 districts are fully accredited and about four are provisionally accredited, none unaccredited. So we have this meaningless accountability system where every district is fully accredited, even St. Louis, which I can’t even go into. So here we are, and I want to know a few things from you. Number one, if you were on the Board of Education in Missouri, how would you go about finding a new commissioner? What would you look for? And then later I want to get into what’s happening at the national level. We are not doing well academically, we have never had a bold reformer in charge, we keep doing the same thing and getting the same result. What would you do if you were in their spot?

Andy Smarick (02:59):
So in education, I’m going to wind up to this answer, so just bear with me for a second. Conservative can mean two different things. One is the traditional conservative view, which is to preserve, to stand athwart big, swift, dramatic, perpetual change. You’re trying to keep things the way they are because there’s a lot of wisdom that has gone into it and people are accustomed to it. In education, there’s also this other right-of-center conservative view, which is we have to be much more open to choice, competition, accountability metrics, and so on. And it seems that Missouri has been one of those very red states that has tended to believe in the first kind of conservatism: protect our traditional school districts, protect the hierarchies we have, protect the tradition of you grow up as a professional, as a teacher, then a superintendent, then maybe go to the state education agency. A lot of people believe that’s the way to do it.

There probably is an ethic among a lot of people to keep it that way. The only way you get out of that is if there’s a recognition among leadership that we can’t continue to preserve the status quo, that we have to change some things. That is a big step for a place that has elevated the idea of preserving for a very long time. If they get to that step, then they have to do the very tough things, which is start to pull out the Jenga pieces of that conservatism. The most important one is having board leadership and having a state superintendent who come from outside the state, and then having a board chair or board president who is not going to just do what the staff of the state education agency says or what the district superintendents say. We saw this work quite well about fifteen or twenty years ago. There was a big movement nationwide in educational reform led at the state level, and a number of states chose out-of-state superintendents and commissioners of education who did a terrific job of shaking things up and advancing a bunch of important proposals. The downside is a lot of them were so brash and so young, and I have to say so cocky, that they made unnecessary waves and kicked a lot of people in the shins in the states where they landed. So my view is a place like Missouri should pick someone from out of state for a state chief, someone with a long track record of success, but someone who isn’t so green as to think he or she knows everything. Someone with enough humility and enough time on task to know what they don’t know, and who can come in and be bold enough to make some changes, but not think that everyone in the state is a dummy who needs to be ignored. That’s how I would think about it. And if you have a board chair and board membership who get all of this, it makes things a whole lot easier. But that might be the hardest part of all. Who is your board president? Who are the board majority going to be? They have to be the ones with the backbone.

Susan Pendergrass (05:57):
Yeah. I feel like we’ve had people come in and say, well, I’m only the commissioner, it’s not my fault that the kids don’t read. And then people say, well, we’re a local control state, so it’s really the local guys’ fault that the kids can’t read. Then the legislators are like, well, who’s supposed to be making sure the kids can read? And technically, kind of they are, but them plus the board, and there’s just fingers pointing every different direction with nobody really taking responsibility. If we had the capacity for hard things, we would not have all of our districts be fully accredited. There’s even pushback on the letter grade idea because folks will say, well, then the teachers in those F schools feel bad and the parents feel bad and the kids who go there feel bad. I’ve seen some states change it to colors or something where nobody feels bad. I’ve also heard folks say it’s racist because a lot of the D and F schools enroll large percentages of students of color. So there are just all of these reasons to resist. It’s going to happen because there’s an executive order, but I feel like we’re going to have a hard time finding somebody who’s willing to do those things.

Andy Smarick (07:17):
Well, your state, like every other state, has a state constitution that makes the state ultimately responsible for education. Your state, like others, has both tradition and some laws that give a number of powers to local districts. The weird thing, and I’ve seen this in a lot of different states, is the state government ends up in a very weird position. The state can get sued and state leaders can get criticized if kids aren’t learning, because the state actually has constitutional authority to make sure kids are learning. But as a matter of practice, and often of state statutes, a lot of this power is delegated to districts. States then try to recapture some of that power through the accreditation system. It’s the way the state can say, okay, districts, you have the power to do these things, but we’re going to hold you accountable for results and we’re going to accredit you or not. And then it turns out it’s virtually impossible to take away the accreditation of these districts because of legislative pushback, and the state typically doesn’t have the capacity to run a district if it does take away accreditation. It just becomes a complete hot mess. That’s why you need state leadership who has some experience but also some backbone to say, this is how we’re going to thread the needle of state authority, state responsibility, local control, and still making sure that kids learn. This is not easy, other states have gone through it, but it isn’t the kind of thing that someone who has lived in Missouri all their life and grown up professionally there can do easily. It’s going to be hard for that person to get out of that box. Having someone from the outside who can start to do some bold things, including hiring smart, tough lawyers, having board leadership who’s going to stick by it. But I just want to emphasize this point: every state I ever talk to begins by saying, well, you know, we’re a local control state, our districts have all the power. Everybody says that. Go back to your state constitution. The state is the one that’s going to be responsible. And if the state has the backbone, it can do a whole lot. But whether it has the backbone is the operative phrase.

Susan Pendergrass (09:41):
Yeah. So about seven years ago we developed our own school report cards with letter grades, called MOSchoolRankings. I’ll just plug it. It was with GPAs, and this year for the first time I just took the GPAs and converted them to letter grades because folks found GPAs tricky. I put up the methodology. I took all the data from our state education agency, DESE, and just tried to make it a map you can zoom in and out on, easier to navigate. And my thinking is you have to do these things, make sure you say how you do it, and then people can argue with you and debate whether it’s right or wrong or good or bad. And many people have. A lot of people don’t like that the average is a C. I’m open to discussing why the average should be anything other than a C, but you have to at some point just make the move and then be confident enough in what you did that you can defend it and change it if people point out flaws. But this is where I think we struggle at DESE. They struggle to just put that out there because they worry about every negative outcome and consequence. And it’s like, yeah, but at some point to not do it is worse than to do it.

Andy Smarick (11:10):
For sure. And I’ve gotten to the point of realizing that if you have been in a system at different ranks for thirty or thirty-five years, all of your friends, your reputation, your pension, your income, everything about your identity is wrapped up with that system. Expecting these folks to suddenly turn the corner and say, you know, we’ve messed up, tens of thousands of kids are not learning right now today in classrooms, and we have to start holding the adults accountable for that, including teachers and principals and local school board members and local superintendents, and we have to be courageous about it. That’s asking a lot of people who are of, by, and for the system. It can be a whole lot easier if you just get someone from the outside with the courage to do it.

Susan Pendergrass (11:54):
Yeah. So can you think of an example of a state that has done this well?

Andy Smarick (12:02):
Definitely during the late No Child Left Behind era and then the Race to the Top era, a number of states found people from outside. Tennessee was famous for this. Arne Duncan ended up going to a couple of different places, including Rhode Island. New Jersey ended up picking Chris Cerf. There was a movement where probably ten or fifteen states did this quite well. My state, Maryland, brought in the superintendent of Mississippi after Mississippi had had so many gains, so she could carry some of those especially reading reforms to our state. This is not uncommon. Texas did something like this for a while. Louisiana became very famous during the John White era for doing this. But in all of these cases it began often with a governor, and then some members of a state legislature who said, we just can’t keep doing things the way we’ve done in the past. We have to do things differently. Once the governor says something like that, he or she can appoint people to the Board of Education who will do things differently, and the legislature, at least his or her party, will start to fall in line, and the media then starts to understand how serious it is. It is hard to do this without the governor leaning forward and giving the blessing to the bureaucracy to do things differently. So the question for you is, is your governor going to spend any political capital on this and say things are messed up and we have to do things differently?

Susan Pendergrass (13:29):
I don’t know. I hope so. But I haven’t seen evidence of that. I suspect, though I could be wrong, that they’re looking more internally than externally. However, I just want to add one wrinkle to this context that we’ve been thinking a lot about at the Show-Me Institute. If you’re following the US Department of Education, I believe you used to work there. Is that right?

Andy Smarick (13:54):
Yes, back in the day.

Susan Pendergrass (13:55):
Last week they moved the Office of Special Education over to the Department of Health and Human Services. They moved the Office of Civil Rights over to the Department of Justice. The building where the Department of Education used to be is now vacated. All those people are over at an old Department of Energy building. It’s a significantly reduced staff. Without touching the Every Student Succeeds Act, they are effectively dismantling most of the structure over there, at a time when the current president said that sending education back to the states was one of his priorities. I’m particularly concerned that at a time when Missouri has this vacuum, we could be looking at the apron strings being cut, states being told to sink or swim from the federal perspective. You don’t have to maintain the accountability systems. The Secretary is encouraging states to submit requests to waive parts of the law. I don’t really know exactly where it’s headed, but that concerns me. Do you think they’re going to let off the gas on mandated accountability systems in exchange for flexibility?

Andy Smarick (15:15):
Such a good question. To begin with just some editorializing: it is astonishing that Congress has allowed this to happen. In general I’m a big fan of decentralizing education power to the states, but that they’ve been able to administratively dismantle a department without Congress doing anything about it is just shocking to me. Even members of the Republican Party twenty years ago, let alone forty or sixty years ago, who jealously guarded the prerogatives of the legislative branch to create departments and fund departments, would have been appalled at this. There would have been unanimous consent to stop this from happening. So that says a lot that Congress has just sort of excused itself from the discussion. It has been remarkable the extent to which that building where we used to work, and the thousands of people there, is just empty, and they are handing off all the tasks to other places. I don’t know how this is legal, but I guess they’re figuring out a way to do it.

Now, the people who are leading this from inside genuinely believe that education will be better off if Uncle Sam isn’t meddling in it so much. That requires a theory of action, or at least a theory, that the reason why things are bad is that Uncle Sam is causing them to be bad, as though if Uncle Sam backs up there’s going to be a sunnier future ahead. Or it requires believing that it is just morally wrong for Uncle Sam to get involved, and whether states sink or swim after he gets out, that’s up to them. That’s a theory, it’s an ideological approach, and they have the right to pursue it. Donald Trump was elected and he gets to hire who he wants to. But then, to your point, it starts to implicate the Every Student Succeeds Act, which still requires the federal government to do some things related to state accountability systems. And if you believe you have the power administratively to undo a cabinet department, I suspect you probably believe you have the power to ignore some federal accountability provisions and just allow states to do what they want. So we’re going to be left in this position of saying, all right, the federal government is getting out of the business of accountability, therefore the states need to do it well. And then anyone who cares about kids learning will ask, okay, are states going to do this well? And so I turn to you as a state leader. Is Missouri going to

Susan Pendergrass (17:23):
Yeah.

Andy Smarick (17:47):
kick butt and take names?

Susan Pendergrass (17:48):
I’m concerned. I mean, No Child Left Behind was difficult and a lot of people didn’t like it, but test scores went up. Strict accountability, test scores went up. As we backed off, the Race to the Top era with waivers, and then Every Student Succeeds, which allowed more waivers, states were able to lower a lot of bars. Some states raised bars, like you mentioned, Mississippi and Louisiana. Some states are doing a great job, especially with early literacy. Others are not. And so Missouri, I think of it like this: you have a college student and you’re paying all their bills. You’re writing the checks, ordering their textbooks, doing all that work. Then one day you say, you know what, instead of that, I’m going to give you $3,000 a month: you pay your rent, your utilities, get your own books. There are going to be kids who step up and do fine. And there are going to be a lot of kids who take that $3,000 and immediately go to Cancun. We know this. It kind of depends on what you’ve done with the kids so far. And I feel like we have lulled the states into a feeling of compliance. If we just tell you how we spend our Title I dollars, fill out this form, and report that our test scores keep going down, no one cares. There’s no stick. They don’t withhold the money. We just say our test scores this year are lower than last year, and they say, good to know, here’s your

Andy Smarick (19:14):
Yep.

Susan Pendergrass (19:22):
check. So if that’s how you were raising your kids so far, why would you expect them to step up and become suddenly responsible?

Andy Smarick (19:31):
Okay, I have to admit that I have learned a hard lesson in my years doing education policy, which is that I was wrong that the political system of its own volition will always push for big action to make sure schools are great. I believed that if we had accountability systems showing that schools were underperforming, there would be a perpetual energy within the public to say we have to fix this, that it was just a matter of making the knowledge available and then everything else would take care of itself. It turns out it just doesn’t work that way. You need leaders at the top to constantly push and say, we are not doing well enough, we have to do dramatic things to make sure kids are going to be better off. Otherwise, No Child Left Behind is in place for a while and then people get sick of it. Or you have some interesting testing regimes and then there’s pushback to that, or just resistance to Uncle Sam in general. And people like the two of us say, but kids aren’t learning anything anymore. We are seeing a cratering of student learning since the peak of No Child Left Behind’s learning gains. This is horrible. Kids just aren’t learning anymore. The Andy of twenty years ago would have assumed the nation would revolt and say, how dare we do this to our schools and our kids, we have to do something differently. Instead, I don’t want to say it’s crickets, but there has not been a major wave of energy to change things again. The only way to do this is for governors or presidents to say this is not good enough and keep pushing. It is the ultimate dog that didn’t bark. The story is why something isn’t happening. If things are so bad in student learning, why is there not a dramatic energy within the public to do things differently? So maybe I look to you. In Missouri, are people just satisfied? Do they just not want the hassle?

Susan Pendergrass (21:28):
Why do you think? Yeah, they are like, we love our schools. All the time: we love our schools. We love, love, love our rural schools. It’s hard, kids show up with a lot of baggage, it’s just hard. But we love our schools. God forbid we have tiny districts getting below fifty kids. We love it. There isn’t an appetite to say, well, thirty-some percent of our rural high schools don’t offer calculus, and we don’t think we need it. It’s like, well, those kids are going to join a world where a lot of other kids had access to these things. It’s just, I don’t know the word. Complacency for sure. And it gets exhausting to continue to talk about it because it feels like

Andy Smarick (22:20):
Yeah. So this is why it can feel that way. And listen, if I were a state superintendent, based on the things I have learned, I would always begin a big reform movement by saying, first, all of the things you just said, but sincerely, because I believe this. I would say I love our public schools. I know how much they do for kids. I know that we love our teachers. I know that these schools are part of the community. I know that they help shape young people in ways beyond reading and math scores. I know that we love to go to these sports events. I know that we love to go to our fifth-grade graduation. This is an important strand in the fabric of our community. We love these schools, we love our teachers, we need to protect them, and we have to do better. What I found in that previous movement of big, dramatic out-of-state actors who came in and took over is they were awesome at the we-have-to-do-better part and absolutely lousy at the we-love-the-schools-and-teachers part. And that just caused a lot of anger. It was toxic in the long run. It is so important to a state to hear the we-love-our-schools message. That’s why they end up picking leaders, board presidents and superintendents who are of the system, who sincerely love their schools and say that. But they’re bad at the second part: we have to do things differently. The key to leadership right now is finding someone who can say both. We love these schools. We love public education in our communities. But Lord, our kids deserve a whole lot better than this. We have to do some things differently. That’s a rare leader.

Susan Pendergrass (24:00):
Yeah. Well, I think that’s a great place to end, because what else can you say? That’s awesome. That’s what we’re looking at. We’re going to find out soon, and not just Missouri. Many states have the same problems. I would love to have you come back again, Andy. We love having you.

Andy Smarick (24:16):
I love getting emails from you or Zach asking me to come on. I’m happy to give my bad opinions on anything.

Susan Pendergrass (24:23):
No, you have such a good, crystallized view of these things, and your experience on state boards is invaluable. I do appreciate it. Thank you for taking the time. I know you’re busy and hopefully you’ll come back soon.

Andy Smarick (24:40):
Whenever you call. Have a great summer.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The Case for an Education Outsider in Missouri with Andy Smarick appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This is not to say that salary, benefits, and other factors are not important in keeping people in a job. Rather, we simply recognized that work conditions also matter. Generally, people are much more willing to stay at a job when they feel supported, they like their work, and they see opportunities for growth. The same is true in education.

In prior research, we identified five in-school factors that influence teacher retention: positive school culture, supportive administration, strong professional development, mentoring programs, and classroom autonomy. Through interviews with school principals, we explored how school leaders can leverage these five factors to improve teacher retention.

While our paper does not delve into the broader policy debates regarding the teacher labor force, it does raise an important idea that policymakers must keep in mind—government action is often limited in what it can accomplish. Let me explain.

The state can mandate higher teacher salaries, as it did in Senate Bill 727, but it cannot mandate better school culture. The culture must be established locally, by the leaders, the teachers, and the community of parents and students in the school. At best, government policies set the playing field for individual human action to take place, but the policies themselves cannot make a leader more supportive of faculty or improve personal relationships.

Given this reality, we must ask what conditions best promote positive school communities. What can legislators do to improve school culture? As I’ve suggested before, you do not drive excellence in academics, or school culture, via top-down policies. The best way to do this is through creating opportunities for excellence and for community to thrive. This is through choice. Through choice, leaders, teachers, parents, and students can choose the schools where they feel most accepted, supported, and encouraged to grow. Choice, of course, is not a silver bullet. There are no silver bullets. But it is the best mechanism we have that allows unique, happy, and successful school communities to flourish.

The post Teacher Retention and the Limits of Public Policy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This is not to say that salary, benefits, and other factors are not important in keeping people in a job. Rather, we simply recognized that work conditions also matter. Generally, people are much more willing to stay at a job when they feel supported, they like their work, and they see opportunities for growth. The same is true in education.

In prior research, we identified five in-school factors that influence teacher retention: positive school culture, supportive administration, strong professional development, mentoring programs, and classroom autonomy. Through interviews with school principals, we explored how school leaders can leverage these five factors to improve teacher retention.

While our paper does not delve into the broader policy debates regarding the teacher labor force, it does raise an important idea that policymakers must keep in mind—government action is often limited in what it can accomplish. Let me explain.

The state can mandate higher teacher salaries, as it did in Senate Bill 727, but it cannot mandate better school culture. The culture must be established locally, by the leaders, the teachers, and the community of parents and students in the school. At best, government policies set the playing field for individual human action to take place, but the policies themselves cannot make a leader more supportive of faculty or improve personal relationships.

Given this reality, we must ask what conditions best promote positive school communities. What can legislators do to improve school culture? As I’ve suggested before, you do not drive excellence in academics, or school culture, via top-down policies. The best way to do this is through creating opportunities for excellence and for community to thrive. This is through choice. Through choice, leaders, teachers, parents, and students can choose the schools where they feel most accepted, supported, and encouraged to grow. Choice, of course, is not a silver bullet. There are no silver bullets. But it is the best mechanism we have that allows unique, happy, and successful school communities to flourish.

The post Teacher Retention and the Limits of Public Policy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Unfortunately, that leadership is conspicuously missing. The DESE website has a link to the Show Me Strong Recovery Plan that makes no mention of education. If you dig deeper, you’ll find that DESE and the Department of Health and Social Services hosted an hour-long webinar on reopening that you could watch. The companion pdf has one slide on reopening that mostly focuses on attendance and funding.

What should DESE be doing? Maybe follow the lead of Nebraska. The Launch Nebraska project, has very specific guidance on school governance, operations, and technology targeted to both district leaders or school leaders. Maybe pick up some pointers from the Alaska Smart Start 2020 restart and reentry guidance that has separate suggestions for low-risk, medium-risk, and high-risk districts. Maybe set up a website like Iowa’s Return-to-Learn Support page with deliverables and timelines. Maybe read through Florida’s 143-page pdf titled Reopening Florida’s Schools and the CARES Act regarding closing achievement gaps and creating safe spaces for learning.

Unprecedented challenges in education require more than a webinar video and a slide in a PowerPoint. Having looked at the websites of over 400 Missouri school districts, I can attest that, based on what they were able to do last spring, districts are going to need real guidance and leadership. What type of staffing guidance should they develop? How will they deal with parents who don’t like their plan? How should they deal with teachers who don’t like their plan? How, specifically, should they address the social and emotional needs of students? What should they implement immediately to address learning loss?

There is no reason to make 520 school districts create 520 reopening plans. If the state education agency in Missouri is little more than a clearinghouse of links and information from other sources, then it may be time to rethink its structure and its existence.

The post Missouri Needs Education Leadership Now More Than Ever appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In September, the reconstituted board announced that it was conducting a search to find a new commissioner. Like many, we hoped that the state would hire someone with a fresh vision and a vigorous approach to reform who would be determined to improve the performance of schools in Missouri.

The need for new leadership is undeniable.

When Dr. Vandeven was named commissioner of education back in 2014, the state’s education system had an ambitious goal: to have Missouri’s students performing among the best in the nation— “Top 10 by 2020.” Needless to say, that goal was never achieved. On the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also known as “The Nation’s Report Card,” Missouri ranked 31st in 8th grade math in 2007 among the 50 states. Fast forward to 2017, and our ranking in the same subject and grade was 32nd.

During this same time, Missouri has had a revolving door of state standardized tests for students. According to a study published in Education Next¸ Missouri was the only state in the nation to actually lower proficiency standards between 2009 and 2017. Every other state is demanding more from their schools, while we’re asking for less. Why are we okay with that?

Not surprisingly, the Top 10 by 2020 goal has been quietly dropped. We have lost (at least) a decade in improving student outcomes, and we have no North Star.

During Dr. Vandeven’s tenure, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) began the process of revising the Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP), the system used to accredit school districts. Today, out of 527 public school districts, not a single one is unaccredited and just six are provisionally accredited. DESE technically only accredits districts, not individual schools. Yet when the St. Louis Public School District became fully accredited, every school was given an enormous banner to hang outside with the school name and “Fully Accredited!” on it. What’s a parent to think?

There are far too many schools in Missouri with rates of proficiency in the single digits. DESE touts a high school graduation rate of nearly 90 percent, and then reports that fewer than 43 percent of graduates are college- or career-ready. Doesn’t every student deserve to have at least one high-quality option for their education?

It would be churlish to place the entire blame for this state of affairs on Dr. Vandeven, or any single official. Education is a complex process, educational bureaucracies are notoriously hard to change, and education in Missouri has been troubled for a long time.

But for precisely those reasons, we need to face the truth: Doing the same thing but expecting different results won’t work. During Dr. Vandeven’s tenure as commissioner, DESE made no real effort to provide parents useful information about how well our schools and districts were serving students. And DESE has stood firmly against any form of school choice for parents outside of Kansas City or St. Louis, regardless of how well (or poorly) students are being served by their assigned public school.

It is clearly time for a fresh look and a new approach at DESE. And yet last Wednesday, the board announced that the search for a commissioner was over, and that the new commissioner of education would be . . . the former commissioner of education, Dr. Vandeven.

We’ll have more to say about education in Missouri—a lot more—as state government prepares for the Legislature to reconvene in January. But for now, this much is clear:

If the members of the board, and the Governor who appointed them, had been trying to send the signal that they were satisfied with the status quo in Missouri; that they were throwing in the towel on real reform in the public schools and real options for Missouri families; that they were more interested in not making waves with the educational establishment than in making the lives of our children brighter—they made exactly the right choice.

The post One Step Forward, Two Steps Back appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There is a lesson to learn here. It is one that people across the country have found when their great superintendent leaves for greener pastures.  We cannot have school systems that are completely dependent on a one-in-a-million talent at the helm in order to succeed.  There is only one Tiffany Anderson.  Missouri has 520 school districts.

One of the main reasons that I advocate for a decentralized schooling system is that it is more resilient to the shocks that occur in everyday life. People move. People’s life priorities change.  People die. If, for example, a school district is run by a collection of independent charter school operators and one amazing principal leaves, there is a limit to the disruption in the equilibrium of the system. But if power is centralized and the person at the top leaves, the whole system is affected.

Tiffany Anderson is proof that there are great leaders out there who can turn around struggling organizations. The problem is that there just aren’t enough of them.  Our response should not be to bemoan this fact, just like it doesn’t make sense to get upset at blizzards or floods or thunderstorms.  We should try and build systems that can handle the snow, the rain, and the wind.

We will have to see if the Jennings district is resilient enough to absorb the loss. For its kids’ sake I hope it is. But if it isn’t, we’ve got to start moving toward a better way.

The post Jennings Superintendent’s Departure: Lessons for Education Policy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I taught at an urban, historically African-American Catholic school, St. Jude Educational Institute on the west side of Montgomery, Alabama. After 76 years of operation it closed its doors 2014, following the path of many other inner-city Catholic schools. 

You should be worried about urban Catholic schools closing, as they have for decades succeeded where other schools have failed.  Surveying the research, economist Derek Neal wrote, “Although many questions remain unanswered, one result seems clear. Black and Hispanic students in large cities often have the most to gain from private schooling, in particular, Catholic schooling.”

But the story of Catholic schools in America today is not all doom and gloom. Echoing what my good friend Andy Smarick wrote in National Review earlier this week, there are in fact, several promising trends in contemporary Catholic education. I’d like to highlight three:

1. Innovative management strategies. Many dioceses have not kept up with the changing times. Some still rely on parish-based schools tied to neighborhoods whose demographics of both children and parishioners are changing. Others have decided to keep open a large number of under-enrolled schools rather than consolidate resources into a smaller number of more viable schools. Our Lady Queen of Angels is a great example of a school under creative leadership. It is part of the Partnership for Inner City Education, a management consortium of 6 urban Catholic schools in New York. The partnership has a laser-like focus on providing a great education for low-income students, and supplements the Archdiocese, which already has its hands full managing its diverse portfolio of schools. Organizations like this (which already exist in Washington DC, Philadelphia, and elsewhere) can help bring a much more coherent strategy to urban Catholic education and stretch limited dollars the furthest.
2. Blended Learning. Multiple Catholic-school organizations have been working on blended learning models, which can help schools control personnel costs, a huge driver in the increase in the cost of Catholic schooling as the teacher workforce has shifted from priests and religious sisters to lay men and women. Seton Education Partners has implemented a blended learning model at six Catholic schools in San Francisco, Cincinnati, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia. The University of Notre Dame’s Alliance for Catholic Education has piloted a blended learning school in Seattle. Even the much-vaunted Cristo Rey network has started a blended learning school in San Jose, California. These could change the delivery model of Catholic education, lower its cost, and make it available for more and more students.
3. School Choice. Probably the single most promising development in Catholic education over the past two decades has been the emergence and growth of private school choice programs. Catholic schools in Indiana, Florida, and Wisconsin have swelled with students attending with state support in the form of a school voucher, tuition tax credit scholarship, or education savings account. Nationwide, enrollment in school choice programs has grown from less than 30,000 students in 2000 to over 300,000 today. That said, if more low- and middle-income students are going to be able to take advantage of a Catholic school education, more states will need to create or expand these programs.

It was the prophet Jeremiah who said “in this place of which you say it is a waste, there will be heard again the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness. The voices of those who sing.” For years now, many observers have written off Catholic schools as dying institutions that had failed to keep up with the changing times. But across America, voices are singing.

The post Pope Francis Is Visiting a Catholic School. Maybe You Should, Too appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The website teacherspayteachers.com, which allows educators to sell original lesson plans, worksheets, and curriculum materials, has provided Ms. Randazzo with an outlet to sell 4,000 copies of her original worksheet, “Whose Cell Phone Is This?” priced at $1 dollar per sheet. Between all of the resources she has made available for high school grammar, vocabulary, and literature, she has grossed $100,000 in sales.

In Teacherpreneur: Innovative Teachers Who Lead But Don’t Leave, the Center for Teacher Quality advocated for this new type of educator. Teacherpreneurs spend a portion of their time teaching in the classroom and then serve in other educational roles outside the classroom. Some, like Ms. Randazzo, develop materials that they then sell. Others help out as teacher leaders in their schools, mentoring new teachers and developing strong curricula for other classes to use. Some even get involved in the policy process, working with district, state, and national leaders to influence the rules and regulations that govern public schools. 

Unfortunately, as the authors point out, today’s “archaic” work schedule may limit opportunities for teacherpreneurs. Teaching 2030 cowriter Ariel Sacks explained in 2010 why it’s important for teacherpreneurs to split time both as an educator and an entrepreneur:

Many teachers like myself could play any number of teacherpreneurial roles depending on the needs of my school and the funding source—community organization, think tank, or university. Right now, many of us are developing curriculum materials, mentoring teachers, or creating partnerships between our schools and other organizations. And I can imagine more: I could do policy work outside my school and/or be a freelance writer, with perhaps only half of my salary paid by the school itself.

The beauty of a hybrid, teacherpreneurial role is that I would always maintain a classroom teaching practice. Teaching is the soul of my work in education. If I lose that, I think I’d feel disconnected from my purpose and passion—and my colleagues. At least in my own mind, my work would lose relevance and, understandably, I would lose credibility with my teaching peers.

Today’s school environment is hardly a hotbed for teacherpreneurs, so it’s worth considering what types of policy reforms, either at the local or state level, would allow teacherpreneurs to thrive. Expanding virtual teaching opportunities, for example, may allow educators to stay in the classroom while taking on other roles.  They could create online modules or allow students in other schools or districts to join their class via Skype or other video-conferencing software. For every module that a student uses or every student who joins their class, they could get paid.

One day we might not only award an educator with the title of Missouri Teacher of the Year, but recognize a teacherpreneur as well.

The post Who is Missouri’s Teacherpreneur of the Year? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Read the essay: The Power To Lead: Analysis Of Superintendent Survey Responses Regarding Teacher Tenure

The post The Power To Lead: Analysis Of Superintendent Survey Responses Regarding Teacher Tenure appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Read the essay: The Power to Lead.

The post James Shuls, Ph.D., on Teacher Tenure Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri students will soon be returning to school, and although most school employees are still enjoying their summer breaks, superintendents are already hard at work preparing their districts for the annual back-to-school onslaught. Superintendents are the most highly compensated employees in education, earning an average salary of $106,368 in Missouri during 2009, according to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE).

However, salary statistics considerably understate total superintendent compensation, leaving out benefits such as insurance, car allowances, and annuities. Furthermore, according to a new study by Audrey Spalding, public information specialist at the Show-Me Institute, although superintendent pay is correlated with many school district characteristics — total student enrollment, whether a district is urban or rural, percentage of residents with a college degree, etc. — compensation does not appear to depend on measures of either superintendent performance or student achievement. Given the amount of money paid to superintendents, it behooves Missourians to take a closer look at how superintendent compensation is determined and the benefits that the public receives for that cost.

Using superintendent contracts collected from nearly 90 percent of Missouri’s 521 public school districts (all the collected contracts are available at the Show-Me Institute’s website), Spalding shows that a quarter of all superintendents receive automatic raises built into their contracts. Other school districts look to surrounding districts to determine superintendent pay. For instance, the Lindbergh School District simply averages salary figures from 11 specific school districts and adds 11 percent to determine its superintendent’s pay.

Districts are required to report superintendent salary numbers to DESE, but the value of their contractual benefits are far less transparent. All superintendents receive some form of insurance through their districts, but contracts rarely specify the monetary value of the coverage. More hidden still are the annuities received by 6.9 percent of all Missouri superintendents. The majority of annuity payments are awarded to superintendents already making more than the median salary, which indicates that annuities are a supplement to regular salary, not a replacement for it. Sometimes this additional money can be quite substantial. The Parkway School District’s superintendent, for instance, earns both $200,000 in salary and a $30,000 annuity. Some superintendents say that annuities are used to offset the difference between their salary and what they could earn managing a private firm of similar size. However, the fact that annuity payments are not reported to DESE suggests that they can also serve as a means for districts to mask the full costs of superintendent compensation from the general public.

The simplistic methods used for determining superintendent salary and lack of transparency in compensation are both cause for concern, but more troubling is the fact that superintendent pay does not seem to correlate with student academic achievement. Spalding tested whether higher scores on the mathematics portion of the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) test led to increased pay for the superintendents and found no statistically significant relationship between the two variables. Moreover, most school districts do not have any specific method of evaluation spelled out in the contract, and less than 13 percent of districts tied superintendent raises to school board evaluations.

The point is not that school districts are overpaying superintendents. In fact, many — particularly in rural areas — may be underpaid. However, because nearly all superintendents are paid without regard to any kind of performance metric, it is extremely difficult to determine what benefits they bring to the district. If school boards tied at least some portion of superintendent salary to district goals and academic outcomes, and reported total compensation in a more transparent manner, the public would be in a better position to determine whether those resources are being employed wisely. As any good educator will tell you, knowledge is power.

John Payne is a research assistant at the Show-Me Institute, a Missouri-based think tank.

Related Links

Actual Pay: A Survey of Missouri Public School Superintendent Salary and Benefit Packages

The post Compensation for School Superintendents Needs Greater Transparency, Accountability appeared first on Show-Me Institute.