Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
A Plan for Evaluating the
District of Columbia’s Public Schools
From Impressions to Evidence
Committee on the Independent Evaluation of DC Public Schools
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
OCR for page R2
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Govern-
ing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the
councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineer-
ing, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for
the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropri-
ate balance.
This study was supported by Award No. ODCA 2010-01 and ODCA 2011-01
between the National Academy of Sciences and the Government of the District
of Columbia; and Award No. 201000123 between the National Academy of Sci-
ences and the Spencer Foundation. The study was also supported by the National
Science Foundation, the CityBridge Foundation, the Philip L. Graham Fund, the
Kimsey Foundation, the World Bank, and the Diane and Norman Bernstein Foun-
dation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this
publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-20936-6
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-20936-6
Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press,
500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or
(202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2011 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Cover credit: Photograph by Sabryn McDonald, seventh grade student from Cesar
Chavez Middle School, District of Columbia, as part of the Critical Exposure Pro-
gram, http://www.criticalexposure.org © 2011.
Suggested citation: National Research Council. (2011). A Plan for Evaluating the
District of Columbia’s Public Schools: From Impressions to Evidence. Committee
on the Independent Evaluation of DC Public Schools. Division of Behavioral and
Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
OCR for page R3
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society
of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to
the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare.
Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Acad-
emy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific
and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy
of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter
of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding
engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members,
sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the
federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineer-
ing programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research,
and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is presi-
dent of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of
Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in
the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Insti-
tute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its
congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own
initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V.
Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sci-
ences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the
Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government.
Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the
Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy
of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to
the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The
Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine.
Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively,
of the National Research Council.
www.national-academies.org
OCR for page R4
OCR for page R5
COMMITTEE ON THE INDEPENDENT
EVALUATION OF DC PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Christopher Edley, Jr., Cochair, School of Law, University of California,
Berkeley
Robert M. Hauser, Cochair, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences
and Education, National Research Council, Washington, DC, and
Vilas Research Professor, Emeritus, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Beatrice F. Birman, Education, Human Development, and Workforce
Program, American Institutes for Research, Washington, DC
Carl A. Cohn, School of Educational Studies, Claremont Graduate
University
Leslie T. Fenwick, School of Education, Howard University
Michael J. Feuer, Graduate School of Education and Human Development,
George Washington University
Jon Fullerton, Center for Education Policy Research, Harvard University
Fernando A. Guerra, Metro Health, San Antonio, Texas
Jonathan Gueverra, Office of the Chief Executive, Community College of
the District of Columbia
Jonathan Guryan, Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University
Lorraine McDonnell, Department of Political Science, University of
California, Santa Barbara
C. Kent McGuire, Office of the President, Southern Education Foundation,
Atlanta, Georgia
Maxine Singer, Carnegie Institution of Washington
William F. Tate IV, Department of Education, Washington University in
St. Louis
Laudan Y. Aron, Study Director (until December 2010)
Alexandra Beatty, Senior Program Officer
Natalia Pane, Visiting Scholar
Kelly Iverson, Senior Program Assistant
Jeremy Flattau, Mirzayan Fellow
Christina Maranto, Mirzayan Fellow
Jessica Schibler, Summer Intern
v
OCR for page R6
OCR for page R7
Preface
The District of Columbia has struggled for decades to improve its
public education system. The school system’s problems in many ways re-
flect its context: a city whose history has been characterized by sometimes
stark racial and class divides. The District is not part of any state, and,
for a variety of legal and historical reasons, the U.S. Congress has control
over many aspects of its affairs and budget. The city’s schools have been
governed differently and with more volatility than any other urban district:
17 different management structures have been tried since 1804.
The most recent change, in 2007, was surely the most dramatic. The
enactment of the Public Education Reform Amendment Act (PERAA),
gave primary control of the schools to the mayor and a mayor-appointed
chancellor, and instituted a host of major changes to management and gov-
ernance. The authors of PERAA recognized the importance of obtaining a
clear, objective, politically independent, and accurate picture of the schools’
progress as these reforms were pursued; and they recognized the complexity
of the technical challenges associated with designing and implementing an
evaluation that could yield that sort of information.
The city council, under the leadership of Chairman Vincent C. Gray
(who has since been elected mayor and has supported this project through-
out) approached the National Research Council (NRC) of the National
Academies to carry out this charge. Assembling an expert panel required
special attention to local, national, and other demographic factors; exper-
tise in the myriad relevant research fields that inevitably must be included
in a comprehensive effort; political and ideological balance; and, given the
vii
OCR for page R8
viii PREFACE
ambitious timeline, sufficient prior experience among participants to ensure
efficiency in deliberations and the preparation of a final report.
Perhaps most important was the decision about just how ambitious to
allow the first phase of this initiative to become. Following negotiations
with the DC government, the Committee on the Independent Evaluation of
DC Public Schools was charged to develop a plan for the multiyear evalu-
ation of DC’s public school system; identify available data and assess its
quality and utility; consider preliminary indicators; and engage with a wide
cross-section of local stakeholder groups to explore the feasibility and scope
of the next phases of an evaluation. In accepting this unusual assignment,
the NRC recognized that there is no well-established model for evaluating
the progress of school reform, and that reform in an urban district is a
moving target. Understanding a school district’s progress—and isolating
the effects of a complex policy—entails answering an array of questions
large and small.
The committee spent much of its time deepening its understanding
of the unique features of Washington, DC, and its public school system,
examining research and key parts of a large literature on school reform,
conferring widely with experienced educators and evaluators, and identify-
ing the most essential elements to be included in a sustainable and robust
system of evaluation. In the course of this phase of the initiative, and based
on careful study and deliberations, the committee developed preliminary
impressions of DC schools under PERAA, which reinforced the committee’s
position that sound policy and practice will, indeed, necessitate more than
“impressions.” The fragility of inferences that are derived from first looks
at data is our principal rationale for designing and advocating a rigorous
long-term program. The main output of this first phase, then, is a frame-
work for such a program.
We hope the report opens and facilitates new dialogue about the cur-
rent and future prospects for infusing in the city’s ongoing school reform
efforts the best that scientific evidence can offer, and that this dialogue will
reverberate in other cities confronting the challenge of improving their
children’s educational opportunities.
This study could not have happened without the support and contribu-
tions of many people. In addition to the basic financial support provided
by the Government of the District of Columbia, for which we are grateful,
we acknowledge the U.S. National Science Foundation for its contribu-
tion of an important planning grant. We also acknowledge grants from
the CityBridge Foundation, the Spencer Foundation, the Philip L. Graham
Fund, the Kimsey Foundation, the World Bank, and the Diane and Norman
Bernstein Foundation. Michael Gewirz and Debbi Yogodzinski provided
much needed moral support and were instrumental in facilitating connec-
tions to leading business figures in the city, without whose support the
OCR for page R9
ix
PREFACE
prospects for a successful initiative would have been questionable. These
organizations and individuals sensed the potential for this venture, and we
are extremely grateful.
We are also grateful for the assistance of many other individuals,
too numerous to name here. Many city officials, private citizens, business
executives, parents, teachers, principals, and others made presentations
to the committee, met with staff and individual members, and supplied
information and materials. A group of accomplished researchers; DC Gov-
ernment officials; civic, business, and labor leaders; parents; experienced
evaluators; and others participated in a critically important planning con-
ference that helped shape—and contain—the parameters of our initiative.
We thank Brenda Turnbull of Policy Associates Inc. who developed
a thoughtful background paper on education indicators. The committee
is also very grateful to Sol and Diane Pelavin, emeriti president and vice
president of the American Institutes for Research, for donating the time,
wisdom, and service of Natalia Pane, who served as a visiting scholar for
the study. We benefited greatly from the assistance of two National Acad-
emies Mirzayan Fellows, Jeremy Flattau and Christina Maranto, and a very
capable summer intern, Jessica Schibler. A special thank you goes to the
NRC staff who supported every aspect of this ambitious study, Michael
J. Feuer, executive director of NRC’s Division of Behavioral and Social
Sciences and Education (until August 2010); Patricia Morison, director of
DBASSE’s Office of Communications and Reports; Jean Moon, scholar;
Laudan Aron, study director (until December 2010); Alexandra Beatty,
senior program officer; and Kelly Iverson, senior program assistant. Finally,
we thank our fellow committee members who volunteered their valuable
time and intellectual efforts. Without their critical expertise and guidance,
this report would not have been possible.
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for
their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with pro-
cedures approved by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose
of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that
will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible
and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity,
evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments
and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the
deliberative process.
We thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Richard A. Berman, Licas.net; Lawrence D. Bobo, Department of African
and African American Studies, Harvard University; Mark Dynarski,
Pemberton Research, East Windsor, New Jersey; Robert E. Floden, Institute
for Research on Teaching and Learning, College of Education, Michigan
State University; Margaret E. Goertz, Graduate School of Education, Uni-
OCR for page R10
x PREFACE
versity of Pennsylvania; Jane Hannaway, Education Policy Center, Urban
Institute; Ernest R. House, School of Education, University of Colorado;
Alan J. Ingram, Springfield Public Schools; Robert L. Johnson, Adolescent
and Young Adult Medicine, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New
Jersey-New Jersey Medical School; Richard C. Larson, Center for Engi-
neering Systems Fundamentals, Learning International Networks Consor-
tium, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Robert Rothman, Alliance
for Excellent Education, Washington, DC; Allan Sessoms, University of the
District of Columbia; William T. Trent, Department of Educational Policy
Studies, College of Education, University of Illinois.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive
comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions
or recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before
its release. The review of this report was overseen by Adam Gamoran,
Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin, and
Caswell A. Evans, College of Dentistry, University of Illinois at Chicago.
Appointed by the NRC, they were responsible for making certain that an
independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with
institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully con-
sidered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with
the authoring committee and the institution.
Christopher Edley, Jr., Cochair
Robert M. Hauser, Cochair
Committee on the Independent
Evaluation of DC Public Schools
OCR for page R11
Contents
SUMMARY 1
1 INTRODUCTION 11
The City and Its Schools, 11
The Committee’s Charge and Its Work, 14
References, 17
2 EDUCATION REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES 19
Reform in Urban Districts, 21
Mayoral Control, 23
The Context of Reform, 25
References, 27
3 THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE REFORM ACT:
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 31
A History of Reform and Criticism, 31
The Racial History of DC Schools, 33
School Politics and the Legacy of Congressional Control, 36
Weak Central Office Leadership and Capacity, 39
Responses to the System’s Problems, 41
The Enactment of PERAA, 42
References, 44
xi
OCR for page R12
xii CONTENTS
4 RESPONSES TO PERAA: INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION 47
A New Structure, 48
Mayoral Control: The Chancellor and the Budget, 48
State Superintendent and State Board of Education, 52
Department of Education and Deputy Mayor, 54
The Ombudsman, 54
Facilities, 55
Structures for Charter Schools, 56
Interagency Commission, 57
Ongoing Questions, 58
References, 60
5 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT UNDER PERAA:
FIRST IMPRESSIONS 63
Student Achievement and Test Data, 64
The Data Sources, 65
Test Score Trends, 67
Issues for Interpreting Test Scores, 77
Evidence Needed for Conclusions of Causation, 77
Looking Beyond Proficiency Rates, 82
Disaggregating Test Results, 83
Comparing Test Results, 85
References, 86
6 SCHOOL QUALITY AND OPERATIONS UNDER PERAA:
FIRST IMPRESSIONS 89
Data—Looking Beyond Test Scores, 90
Sources for This Chapter, 90
The District’s Data Collection Efforts, 91
The DCPS Effective Schools Framework, 96
Areas of District Responsibility, 98
Quality of Personnel, 98
Teachers, 98
Principals and District Leaders, 99
What Districts Can Do, 99
Efforts in the District of Columbia, 100
Quality of Classroom Teaching and Learning, 103
The Role of Standards, 103
Implementing Coordinated Standards, Curriculum, and
Assessments, 104
Efforts in the District of Columbia, 105
OCR for page R13
xiii
CONTENTS
Serving Vulnerable Children and Youth, 108
Beyond the School System, 109
Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners, 109
Efforts in the District of Columbia, 110
Special Education, 110
Other Vulnerable Youth, 110
Family and Community Engagement, 113
Approaches to Engagement, 114
Efforts in the District of Columbia, 114
Operations, Management, and Facilities, 116
Measuring Performance, 117
Efforts in the District of Columbia, 117
Conclusion, 119
References, 120
7 FROM IMPRESSIONS TO EVIDENCE: A PROGRAM
FOR EVALUATION 129
A Framework for Evaluation, 130
Element 1: Structure and Roles, 132
Element 2: Strategies, 133
Element 3: Conditions for Student Learning, 133
Element 4: Outcomes, 134
The Evaluation Goal, 135
A Combination of Ongoing Indicators and In-Depth Studies, 135
Ongoing Indicators, 135
In-Depth Studies, 136
Reporting, 138
An Example of Integrating Evaluation Activities: Improving
Teacher Quality, 138
Strategies, 139
Ongoing Indicators, 140
Teacher Quality, 142
Recruitment, Retention, and Professional Support, 143
In-Depth Studies, 143
Determining Priorities for Evaluation, 145
Primary Responsibilities to Be Evaluated, 146
Criteria for Setting Priorities, 149
Establishing Long-Term Evaluation Capacity, 151
Evaluation Programs: Resources and Examples, 152
The Committee’s Goal, 156
References, 157
OCR for page R14
xiv CONTENTS
APPENDIXES
A Public Community Forum Agenda and Summary 161
B Student Achievement and Attainment Indicators Collected by
DC and Three Other Districts 165
C Education Data for the District of Columbia 169
D Biographical Sketches of Committee Members 183
