Original links are included though some may have expired.

In This Bulletin:

1. New Teacher Quality Studies: Putting Lipstick on a Pig
2. Shades of Gray: The Brown Report on Charters
3. Back to School on ESEA Implementation
4. Urban School Reform
5. Education, Dollars and (No) Sense in Washington
6. New School Construction Paper
7. Mixed Signals at ED
8. Edison Update
9. Article from the Trenches
10. Coming Attractions: PPI Friday Forum: "The Breakfast Club" Perspectives on High School Reform, October 4;
School Leadership and District Governance Forum, November 18

1.) New Teacher Quality Studies: Putting Lipstick on a Pig

The past few weeks saw quite a bit of attention to the issue of teacher quality. First, a new study purports to show that Teach for America Teachers significantly under-perform compared to traditionally certified teachers. The study suffers from serious methodological problems, some of which a lay-observer will catch and some of which are more complicated (a full examination follows). In addition, Linda Darling-Hammond published a somewhat delayed response to the Abell Foundation's October 2001 study on teacher certification policies and their implications. And debate continues on the Department of Education's recent teacher quality report. Links to these studies and other relevant material are below.

The Darling-Hammond paper rehashes her ongoing argument with the Abell Foundation and the Bulletin assumes their response to this response will be forthcoming. (When the Abell report was first released, numerous teacher certification defenders including Darling-Hammond issued critical responses; links to those and Abell's response can be found in the October 16, 2001 issue of the Bulletin linked below.) Between the lines of Darling-Hammond's paper, however, may lay the foundations of the political bridge that must be built in order to move the dialogue over teacher certification forward. The debate should not be over whether or not to have teacher certification. Obviously, some barriers to entry are appropriate because of the gravity of the responsibilities associated with teaching, the highly specialized expertise required in some areas, and because teachers interact with young people. Rather, some consensus based on research and policy aims must be reached with respect to what certification should look like. The current system is indefensible, particularly with regard to its impact on low-income students, but the solution is not simply to throw it out.

Education scholar Frederick M. Hess took a look at this issue and put forward a compromise in "Tear Down this Wall: The Case for a Radical Overhaul of Teacher Certification," and the Bulletin asked Hess for his reaction to the new study on teacher certification since an empirical basis is essential as a jumping off point to rethinking certification. Hess' essay follows:

*****

ADVOCACY IN THE GUISE OF RESEARCH: THE LACZKO-KERR-BERLINER STUDY ON TEACHER CERTIFICATION
By Frederick M. Hess

Last week, those seeking to defend the near-monopoly that schools of education hold over entry into the teaching profession flooded the e-mail of education policymakers and scholars with word of a new study purporting to prove the benefits of teacher certification. The authors and their allies billed the study as compelling evidence in the discussion over teacher licensure policy. In fact, the study, which was conducted by David Berliner of Arizona State University's School of Education and Ildiko Laczko-Kerr and appears in the electronic journal Education Policy Analysis Archives, is the kind of methodologically problematic research that gives so much education scholarship a bad name. In the spirit of full disclosure, I am not a neutral observer regarding the merits of our existing system of teacher licensure. Nonetheless, without claiming to be unbiased regarding the policy prescriptions that Berliner and Laczko-Kerr promote, I would welcome analytically sound work on the crucial question of who should teach our nation's children. Unfortunately, the study in question fails to meet that standard.

Based on their study of a matched sample of 218 Arizona teachers [drawn from an initial sample of 293], the researchers report that the students of "under-certified" teachers significantly under-performed relative to those of certified teachers on SAT-9 subtests in reading, mathematics, and language arts. The researchers sought to "match" new certified and under-certified teachers across districts and schools, in the hope that this approach would wash away all extraneous explanations for differentials in student performance. The researchers report that the students of under-certified teachers perform about 20% worse than do comparable students taught by certified teachers. If this were the case it would be important evidence in this policy debate. However, this study is methodologically flawed to a degree that makes its findings worthless to that debate.

Problem 1: Most crippling to this analysis is the researchers' failure to account for the fact that teachers are not randomly assigned to classes within schools. Using a technique known as matching, Berliner and Laczko-Kerr took two teachers, one certified and one not, from allegedly demographically similar schools (more on that below), sometimes the same school, sometimes different schools, sometimes in different districts, and built their analysis on the assumption that these teachers are, on average, assigned to classes of equal ability. As the researchers say, "It is assumed that teachers in the same school teach similar students..." (26). Berliner, who has long been a critic of the inequities that plague American education, should immediately recognize how problematic that assumption is. As critics of tracking have long noted, more accomplished, credentialed, or respected teachers are traditionally assigned to the more advanced classes, both because these jobs are generally preferred by teachers and because of parental pressure. In fact, in his co-authored 1995 book The Manufactured Crisis, Berliner explicitly argued that tracking is, "associated with discriminatory treatments," that include assigning teachers deemed less able, "to students in low-ability tracks."

This problem would not be of much concern if the researchers were looking at "gain scores" because the higher level of initial student performance for one group of teachers is taken into account. However, when the only measure is the total level of student performance, the problem is enormous. Imagine if we assigned uncertified teachers to advanced classes and licensed teachers to low-level classes, tested their students at the end of the year, and then found that the students of unlicensed teachers appear to perform at a higher level than those of licensed teachers. Proponents of licensure would rightly decry the results as meaningless -- pointing out that the real question is how much value a teacher adds and complaining that the research design shed no light on that question. The same problem exists here.

Given this, the other methodological problems are almost irrelevant. Discussing them is something like arguing about the quality of the plumbing fixtures in a house built on quicksand. Nonetheless, they are worth noting.

Problem 2: Although matching is an accepted methodology, in this study to the extent that the researchers do use "matching" to account for inter-school and inter-district variance, they fail to do so effectively. If the researchers had employed an appropriate matching strategy -- ensuring that teachers were appropriately matched across schools and school districts -- no statistically significant differences would be in evidence. In fact, such differences are evident throughout the matching analytics, forcing the researchers to concede (in a dramatic understatement) that, "this suggests that the procedures we used to match teachers across districts were not faultless" (32). How do they account for this problem -- a critical one, given that their ability to effectively glean data from student scores rests entirely on the premise that the students are interchangeable aside from their current teachers? The researchers merely wish the problem away, saying they think their approach, "can still be defended as a reasonable way," to conduct the analysis (25-26). What makes it reasonable? They don't say.

Problem 3: For the most part the authors lump together Teach for America and other purposive hires with individuals thrown into classrooms on an emergency credential out of a desperate need to find someone to put in front of a classroom. This creates a serious specification error. Contrary to what Berliner and Laczko-Kerr suggest, no one advocating licensure reform has ever suggested that the idea is to hire incompetent and unemployed warm bodies in lieu of qualified teachers. In fact, districts are often forced to hire a large number of teachers on emergency credentials because licensure requirements and related hoops prevent them from finding enough properly credentialed teachers. Proponents of reform argue that streamlining certification requirements will bring new, talented individuals into the schools, not that we should expect whatever individuals have no other current employment when the district is unable to find certified teachers in late August to outperform individuals who have some experience and have consciously chosen education as a career.

That's the analytic problem. Methodologically, the researchers mislead by reporting that the TFA teachers don't produce results significantly different from the other under-certified teachers. This is problematic on two counts. First, by collecting only a tiny sample of TFA teachers, they ensure that such analyses will boast large standard errors and thereby make it hard to generate any significant differences. Second, it is not surprising that TFA teachers would be associated with similar results, since they are likely to be assigned to the same lower-track classrooms as other provisionally certified teachers.

Finally, it is worth noting that Berliner and Laczko-Kerr make a puzzling methodological choice in conducting this study. Rather than using a maximum likelihood estimation model with fixed effects, which would permit them to simultaneously control for classroom-, school-, and district-level variables, they choose to use an approach that forces them to jettison more than a quarter of their data in the course of the analysis. This last issue does not bias the findings; however, it does suggest a willingness to employ suboptimal methodology for no obvious reason.

It is one thing to spin a dubious narrative or render an ideological argument in a high-profile organ. Such exercises are routine in policy debates, and can always be met with counter-argument and critiques. That is the natural course in a free society where there is honest disagreement about public policies.

However, there needs to be a higher standard of self-discipline and scholarly conduct when one claims to be engaging in empirical research. Particularly in policy domains like education, policymakers and the lay public look to scholars to accurately depict phenomena and to competently and honestly try to explain what is observed. We need honest evidence to frame and discipline the public debate if we are serious about testing and refining our notions of how to serve children.

Because disciplining one's own research is a challenging task, especially when pursuing research on questions about which one has strong feelings, the scientific method provides a guard rail and a rulebook to help ensure that scholars do not permit their enthusiasms to get the best of them. Unfortunately, it appears that the scholars in this case either did not recognize major analytic concerns or chose to ignore them. In either case, one would normally expect that the referees at a scholarly journal would catch points of such obvious concern and address them. How and why they failed to catch such crippling design flaws ought to be a question of real concern for the Education Policy Analysis Archives editorial board.

Further Reading:

"Research and Rhetoric on Teacher Certification: A Response to 'Teacher Certification Reconsidered,'"
Linda Darling-Hammond, Education Policy Analysis Archive (09/06/02):
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n36.html

"The Effectiveness of 'Teach for America' and Other Under-certified Teachers on Student Academic Achievement: A Case of Harmful Public Policy,"
Ildiko Laczko-Kerr and David C. Berliner, Education Policy Analysis Archives (09/06/02):
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n37/

"Teacher Certification Reconsidered,"
(includes Abell response to earlier critiques)
Kate Walsh, Abell Foundation (2001):
www.abell.org/

"Teach for American in Houston Evaluation,"
Margaret Raymond, Stephen Fletcher and Javier Luque, CREDO (August 2001):
http://credo.stanford.edu/working_papers.htm

"Teacher Experience Lags at Poorer Skills,"
Jay Mathews, Washington Post (08/27/02):
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
A2000-2002Aug27.html

"Meeting the Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge: The Secretary's Annual Report on Teacher Quality,"
U.S. Department of Education (2002):
www.title2.org/

"The Accreditation Game,"
Sandra Vergari and Frederick M. Hess, EDUCATION next (Fall 2002):
www.educationnext.org/20023/48.html

21^st Century Schools Project Bulletin: vol. 1, no. 15 (10/16/01):
www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110
&subsecID=900001&contentID=250131

"Tear Down this Wall: The Case for a Radical Overhaul of Teacher Certification,"
Frederick M. Hess, Progressive Policy Institute (11/27/01):
www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110
&subsecid=135&contentid=3964

2.) Shades of Gray: The Brown Report on Charters

Earlier this month the Brookings Institution's Brown Center on Education released its annual report on American Education, focusing on three issues: student achievement, high school culture, and charter schools. In particular, the report raises concerns that computational arithmetic skills of American students are declining even as overall math scores rise, and that too little attention or data collection addresses this trend. It also compares achievement and school characteristics of highly athletically successful high schools and other high schools and evaluates the academic outcomes of charter schools in the ten states where they are most established.

It's the charter study that's of greatest interest to the Bulletin. While not without problems, charters are a promising reform strategy and have experienced tremendous growth and success in the last decade. Perhaps because of this growth, charter schools are increasingly coming under attack from those who see them as a threat to the status quo and established interests in American education.

Part of the promise of the charter concept is that schools stand or fall based on student achievement results. Because they're new, charter schools have only recently reached the point where such research can be conducted on any scale and that's why the Brown Center's study is noteworthy. In a heavily qualified finding, the researchers found that overall charter schools in the ten states they examined had significantly lower student achievement than public schools. They also noted that this does not necessarily indicate the charter schools are of lower quality, because no information was available about the students' educational levels prior to entering charter schools.

This is because of a potentially serious selection bias problem with this study. Because there is evidence that charters disproportionately draw students who are struggling or underserved in traditional public schools, it's possible that charter schools are doing just as good a job or better than other public schools but still show lower achievement. Also worth noting is the finding that charter schools in urban areas, where the need for more high-quality alternatives is greatest, showed achievement on par with that of other public schools.

The motives of the Brown study are admirable. The report was intended as scholarship rather than as a broadside on charters, but the intense and politicized environment around charter schools right now doesn't lend itself to thoughtful and qualified studies. Instead, journalists and advocates seek a binary soundbite from every study: charters good or charters bad. The more likely answer is: it depends. And there is a lot we can learn from that while at the same time tolerating low-performing charter schools no more than we should other low-performing public schools.

The Brown report and an important RAND study last year both call for more experimentation and research in this area. They're right; it's sorely needed.

Further Reading:

The Brown Center Report on American Education,
Tom Loveless, Brookings Institution (09/03/02):
www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/gs/brown/
brown_hp.htm

"Rhetoric vs. Reality: What We Know and What We Need to Know About Vouchers and Charter Schools,"
Brian Gill, Michael Timpane, Karen Ross, Dominic Brewer, RAND (2001):
www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1118/

"Study More: Charter Report Should Broaden Education Reform Efforts,"
Lansing State Journal Editorial (09/04/02):
www.lsj.com/opinions/editorials/
020904_ed1_(charters).html

"Studies Debate the Rate; Kids Trail Public Peers,"
Lori Higgins, Detroit Free Press (09/05/02):
www.freep.com/news/education/
nchart5_20020905.htm

"Sports and Academics Can Go Hand in Hand, Brookings Study Finds,"
John Gehring, Education Week (09/11/02):
www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=02brown.h22

3.) Back to School on ESEA Implementation

A judge recently ruled school officials in Augusta, GA's may postpone implementing public school choice provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act because these provisions could conflict with a desegregation order the district is now under. This puts Augusta and the court at odds with the federal Department of Education, which has stated in guidance and proposed regulations that desegregation orders do not exempt districts from compliance with public school choice requirements. Instead, the department argues, Augusta and the many other districts still under such orders must seek revisions to them to accommodate public school choice.

While public school choice has drawn the bulk of public attention around the implementation of NCLB, concerns are also being raised around the law's Reading First program, under which awards have already been made to several states. Some observers worry the program's focus on "scientifically-based research" will lead to narrow lists of approved commercially sold programs from which schools will be forced to choose. The degree of anti-corporate paranoia in some corners of the education community shouldn't be understated and the charge that NCLB policies were designed to enrich certain education companies has been leveled before. The Bulletin doesn't think that's the intent here, but it wouldn't be surprising if some vendors try to exploit confusion about the "scientifically-based" standard as a marketing tool, and it's worth watching how this plays out in states and school districts.

Further Reading:

"Phonics Pitch Irks Teachers,"
Valerie Strauss, Washington Post (09/10/02):
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
A59455-2002Sep9.html

"No One-Size-Fits-All Education,"
Sandra Feldman, Letter to the Editor, Washington Post (09/16/02):
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
A22262-2002Sep15.html

"Paige, Bush Upbeat on Making ESEA Work,"
Eric Robelen, Education Week (09/11/02):
www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=02ed.h22

"Ga. School District Told to Comply with New Law,"
Mary Leonard, Boston Globe (09/05/02):
www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/248/nation/
Ga_school_district_told_to_comply_with_new_law+.shtml

"All But One Company Left Behind?"
Chris Hawke, City Limits Weekly (08/12/02):
www.educationnews.org/cgi-bin/webbbs/article/
article_list.pl?read=21353

4.) Urban School Reform

Many low-performing schools are concentrated in urban school districts, and No Child Left Behind dramatically increases the responsibility of districts to turn these schools around. Thus a recent report from the Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS) and Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation is interesting. Supported by the U.S. Department of Education, the report focused on case studies of the Houston, Charlotte-Mecklenberg and Sacramento City School districts and the Chancellor's District in New York City to identify factors that enabled these districts to improve student achievement and narrow achievement gaps and contrasts with other districts that failed to do so. Political and organizational stability over a sustained period of time, strong accountability systems with clear consequences, defined curriculum aligned to state standards, data-driven decision-making and a clear and narrow focus for reform are among the factors identified.

The dysfunctions of many urban school districts and the obstacles to improvement are widely chronicled. As many analysts have noted, the incentives facing district leaders act against the kind of stability needed for real improvement, and reforms initiated often have no real impact on the core of classroom teaching and learning. As Frederick Hess pointed out in his widely praised book, "Spinning Wheels," the problem may not be a lack of reform in urban districts, but too much. Given the diversity of stakeholders and the interests and incentives under which they operate, it's unclear how, other than by rare good luck, districts might arrive at the consensus and stability that appear necessary for improvement.

This report is well done and well worth reading. The Bulletin hopes, however, that stability and focus are not turned around and used to argue against innovations like greater public school choice, charter schools and urban high school reform.

Further Reading:

"Foundations for Success: Case Studies of How Urban School Systems Improve,"
MDRC for the Council of the Great City Schools, (September 2002):
www.cgcs.org/

Spinning Wheels: The Politics of Urban School Reform
Frederick M. Hess (November 1998):
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0815736355/
qid=1031689612/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-1451968
-5793610?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

"Study Tracks What Works in Four Urban School Districts,"
Linda Jacobson, Education Week (09/11/02):
www.educationweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=02urban.h22

5.) Education, Dollars and (No) Sense in Washington

It wouldn't be fall in Washington if Congress weren't fighting over spending issues, and as always, the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill that funds federal education programs is contentious this year. There is general agreement among Democrats and moderate Republicans that spending limits to which the bill is being held in the House are inadequate to meet existing commitments for education and health research. Last week, appropriations committee chairman Rep. Bill Young threatened to introduce a version of the bill that meets the spending limit by exactly following the President's spending proposals and is almost certain not to pass. The Senate committee has already approved a version of the bill at a much higher overall spending level. Given the substantial differences between these bills and the major foreign policy issues now on Congress' plate, it's becoming more likely not only that a bill will not be finished on time but that a continuing resolution rather than final agreement could postpone the hard decisions until after the election.

On the tax front, Republicans in Congress are pushing legislation to make some private education expenditures tax deductible for low-income families. These families can't use existing education tax deductions, but the new proposals wouldn't provide them much benefit either. In opposing this proposal, Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee that oversees tax issues tried unsuccessfully last week to add school construction tax credit provisions to the bill, which is now headed to the House floor without the school construction amendments. The Bulletin does not support vouchers as a matter of public policy, but honest people can disagree about their efficacy and it's hard to argue vouchers don't provide a limited benefit to some families. Democrats have been attacking the tax credits as analogous to vouchers. They're wrong; the tax-credits are far worse. These sorts of proposals are nothing more than the worst sort of cynicism and politicking. The plight of the poor with regard to public education is a national disgrace. But so is selling education tax-credits as a solution.

Further Reading:

"Bush is Warned: Some Wishes Come True,"
Dan Morgan, Washington Post (09/09/02):
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
A54833-2002Sep8.html

"Playing Funny with the Money," Andrew Rotherham and Frederick M. Hess, NDOL (08/20/02):
www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=250788
&kaid=127&subid=269

PPI's Economic and Fiscal Priorities Project
www.ppionline.org/ppi_ka.cfm?knlgAreaID=125

6.) New School Construction Paper

The school construction fight on the education tax bill also shows how partisan and dysfunctional debates over school construction have become. This is unfortunate because federal assistance for school construction is clearly needed. However, both policy concerns and a partisan stalemate stymie progress. A new PPI analysis by 21st Century Schools Project Analyst Sara Mead examines tax credit bonds as a school construction policy and outlines an alternative proposal for federal school construction aid. Mead argues that the current QZAB program should be continued because it helps a subset of schools, including charter schools, but that expanding it as a way to help all schools is not the most prudent course for Congress. Instead, Mead urges Congress to pass a large and long-term state and regional infrastructure bank initiative.

Further Reading:

"Early Returns: Tax Credit Bonds and School Construction?"
Sara Mead, Progressive Policy Institute (09/12/02):
www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110
&subsecid=134&contentid=250833

7.) Mixed Signals at ED

The Department of Education has announced the creation of two new offices: one focused on Safe and Drug Free Schools, the other on Innovation and Improvement, and new deputy undersecretary positions, to be held by Eric Andell and Nina Shokraii Rees respectively, who will run the offices. Andell is a Texas judge and Rees serves as deputy assistant to Vice President Cheney at the White House. More information on them and their specific responsibilities can be found below. The Bulletin, however, can't help wondering what sort of schizophrenic education policymaking is going on in the Bush Administration. Rees' new office is intended to be change-oriented, flexible, and focused on results, all worthy goals. Yet the Department announced the creation of that office at the same time as it announced a new office for the Safe and Drug Free Schools program, arguably the least effective (albeit most politically sexy) of the major programs the department administers. New titles and offices can be a tempting way to substitute symbolism for real reform, and it's worth watching to see how the Administration, some of whose members have previously expended considerable energy attacking the Department, handles the deeper challenge of adapting its structure and staffing to support the new demands of federal education policy.

Further Reading:

"Paige Announces Formation of Two New Offices,"
U.S. Department of Education (09/17/02):
www.ed.gov/PressReleases/09-2002/09172002.html

8.) Edison Update

Edison Schools has been under considerable public scrutiny lately, as it has recently faced several political and financing setbacks and is under increasing attacks from those who oppose its business model. The Bulletin has closely followed events around Edison, particularly regarding its involvement in Philadelphia, and a link to the Bulletin's recent analysis on this issue appears below. Last week PPI hosted a Friday forum with representatives of Edison Schools and its new division Edison Affiliates to discuss some of these issues. Edison Schools COO and President Chris Cerf defended Edison's achievement and financial record, while admitting to failures in some areas. And, Edison Affiliates Vice President Blanche Fraser presented a picture of Edison's business response in Edison Affiliates, a new division established to market Edison assessment, professional development and other technologies to schools that don't wish to contract with Edison to completely manage schools. This forum, attended by many of Edison's critics, provided a lively opportunity for the audience to hear about Edison's response to its critics and to raise significant questions and challenges of their own about Edison's business model, record and future.

Further Reading:

"Edison Woes,"
21^st Century Schools Project Bulletin, vol. 2, no. 16 (08/27/02):
www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110
&subsecID=900001&contentID=250809

Edison Schools Website:
www.edisonschools.com/home/home.cfm

"Edison's Dim Bulbs,"
Daniel Gross, Slate.com (08/30/02):
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2070329

"Private Enterprise, Public Woes in Phila. Schools,"
Michael Fletcher, Washington Post (09/17/02):
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
A26626-2002Sep16.html

9.) Article from the Trenches

The Bulletin highly recommends a recent piece by Larry Slonaker, a San Jose Mercury News reporter who took a year leave to teach public school. Slonaker's description of the challenges he faced during that year is compelling reading.

Further Reading:

"My Year as a Teacher,"
Larry Slonaker, San Jose Mercury News (08/25/02):
www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/living/
education/3935242.htm

10.) Coming Attractions:

PPI Friday Forum: "The Breakfast Club" Perspectives on High School Reform, October 4

School Leadership and District Governance Forum, November 18

For the past decade, education reformers have focused on early learning and reforming and improving elementary school education, but American high schools still look pretty much like they have for decades. Many observers have noted that the No Child Left Behind Act is largely an elementary education law, but high schools must also meet its challenges and compensate for youth who have been left behind for much of their education. On October 4, PPI will host a forum to discuss how high schools need to be improved, promising high school reform efforts, and what policymakers must do to better serve high school students.

WHAT:

PPI Friday Forum: "The Breakfast Club" Perspectives on High School Reform

WHO:

Michael Cohen, Aspen Institute
Scott Joftus, Alliance for Excellent Education
Stefanie Sanford, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Thomas Toch, National Center on Education and the Economy

WHEN:

October 4, 2002; 9:00 -- 11:00 AM

WHERE:

Progressive Policy Institute
600 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20003 (Eastern Market Metro)

******

Save the Date:

On the morning of November 18, PPI will hold a forum to accompany the release of two new PPI papers, one by Frederick M. Hess on School Leadership and one by Paul Hill on Education Governance. Per the usual 21^st Century Schools Project format, Hess and Hill will present their papers for comment by both a panel of expert reviewers and the audience. Both papers, as well as the forum itself, are funded by a generous grant from The Broad Foundation. The Broad Foundation is a Los Angeles-based organization founded by Eli and Edythe Broad and dedicated to dramatically improving K-12 urban public education through better governance, management, and labor relations. Stay tuned to the Bulletin: more information on exact time and location is forthcoming.

Circulation Notice:

Do you receive PPI's education Bulletin forwarded by a friend or colleague? Or do you forward this newsletter to your colleagues and friends with either admiration or shock? Either way it's easy for you or others to sign up and receive this newsletter directly without the hassle of forwarding. Just go to our website at this URL, type in your e-mail address and click on "Education" (you can also sign up to receive updates from PPI in other issue areas that interest you, as well): www.ppionline.org/specials/sign_up

Alternatively you can e-mail the 21st Century Schools Project at education@dlcppi.org and ask to be signed up.

Support Our Work:

Do you like reading the Bulletin? Want to make sure it continues to be available? Then go to https://secure.ga3.org/05/support to support the 21st Century Schools Project's work on education reform.