Daniel Hamlin, Author at Education Next https://www.educationnext.org/author/dhamlin/ A Journal of Opinion and Research About Education Policy Wed, 03 Jan 2024 18:44:49 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.5 https://i0.wp.com/www.educationnext.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/e-logo.png?fit=32%2C32&ssl=1 Daniel Hamlin, Author at Education Next https://www.educationnext.org/author/dhamlin/ 32 32 181792879 Homeschooling Skyrocketed During the Pandemic, but What Does the Future Hold? https://www.educationnext.org/homeschooling-skyrocketed-during-pandemic-what-does-future-hold-online-neighborhood-pods-cooperatives/ Tue, 01 Feb 2022 10:00:04 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49714528 It may be less of an either-or option, as homeschooling is combined with online experiences, neighborhood pods, cooperatives, or joint undertakings with public and private schools

The post Homeschooling Skyrocketed During the Pandemic, but What Does the Future Hold? appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
Caprice Corona assists her three children during a music lesson at home.
Caprice Corona assists her three children during a music lesson at home.

As folk wisdom has it, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. And research shows that children are generally shaped more by life at home than by studies at school. College enrollment, for instance, is better predicted by family-background characteristics than the amount of money a school district spends on a child’s education. Some parents have a specific vision for their child’s schooling that leads them to keep it entirely under their own direction. Even Horace Mann, the father of the American public school, who favored compulsory schooling for others, had his own children educated at home.

Homeschooling is generally understood to mean that a child’s education takes place exclusively at home—but homeschooling is a continuum, not an all-or-nothing choice. In a sense, everyone is “home-schooled,” and the ways that families combine learning at home with attending school are many. Parents may decide to home-school one year but not the next. They may teach some subjects at home but send their child to school for others, or they may teach all subjects at home but enroll their child in a school’s sports or drama programs. Especially during the Covid-19 pandemic, the concept of homeschooling has become ambiguous, as parents mix home, school, and online instruction, adjusting often to the twists and turns of school closures and public health concerns.

Valerie Bryant helps her daughter with homework.
Valerie Bryant helps her daughter with homework.

Improving public understanding of the growing and changing nature of homeschooling was the purpose of a virtual conference hosted in spring 2021 by the Program on Education Policy and Governance at the Harvard Kennedy School. The conference examined issues in homeschooling through multiple lenses, including research, expert analysis, and the experiences of parents. The event drew more than 2,000 registrants, many of them home-schooling parents. Their participation made clear that homeschoolers today constitute a diverse group of families with many different educational objectives, making it difficult to generalize about the practice. The conference did not uncover convincing evidence that homeschooling is preferable to public or private schools in terms of children’s academic outcomes and social experiences, but neither did it find credible evidence that homeschooling is a worse option. Whether homeschooling does or does not deliver for families seems to depend on individual needs and the reasons that families adopt the practice.

Homeschooling Growth

The interest drawn by the conference is striking in light of where homeschooling stood only a few decades ago. In the early 1970s, the education mainstream in the United States frowned upon the practice and considered it a fringe movement. At the time, it was estimated that about 10,000 to 15,000 children were being homeschooled nationally. Only three states explicitly allowed parents to home-school. Elsewhere, the removal of students from the schoolhouse could be treated as a criminal violation of the state’s compulsory-education law, and parents were sometimes jailed for that very reason.

Despite advocating for compulsory education, Horace Mann homeschooled his children.
Despite advocating for compulsory education, Horace Mann homeschooled his children.

To fight for the right to home-school, a coalition of home-schooling advocates coalesced in the 1980s. Over the next 10 years, they would radically change the legal framework and trajectory of homeschooling. The coalition included left-leaning acolytes of John Holt, a former elementary school teacher who became disillusioned with the oppressive routines and rigid structures that he felt characterized formal schooling. Holt coined the term “unschooling,” the practice of keeping children out of school and, instead of designing a specific home curriculum, giving them considerable freedom to decide what to learn and how to learn it. Holt’s approach was an extension of the educational philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the 18th-century French philosopher who theorized that the best education was one determined solely by children themselves.

The largest element in the coalition of home-schooling advocates consisted of devout Christian families who bemoaned what they viewed as moral decay in public schools. Only by homeschooling, they held, could they ensure that their children would be educated in a manner consistent with their religious beliefs and values. In 1983, Michael Farris founded the Home School Legal Defense Association to protect homeschoolers from compulsory-education laws. Dues-paying members were promised free legal defense if a government body threatened parents with prosecution. This offer proved to be a powerful organizing tool, and the association now reports a membership of over 100,000. With the backing of an organized grassroots constituency, the association and other advocacy groups persuaded legislatures in all 50 states to craft a legal framework for those who wanted to educate their children at home. Once that legal context was in place, homeschooling took off. By the early 2000s, the number of homeschoolers had surpassed one million nationwide, according to the National Center for Educa-tion Statistics.

French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau thought children should direct their education.
French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau thought children should direct their education.

At the conference, Brian Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute, a pro-homeschooling research organization, estimated the number of home-schooled children in 2019 at 3 million. Official estimates provided by the U.S. Department of Education prior to the pandemic hovered at 3 percent of all school-age children, which amounts to fewer than 2 million students. The difference between these estimates stems in part from the challenges of getting a full and accurate count of the number of children who are being educated primarily at home. Many school districts are not obligated to report to the state the number of home-schooled students in their district. Instead, the U.S. Department of Education bases its estimate on a questionnaire that it mails to a nationally representative sample of parents every few years. However, better than a third of those surveyed in 2019 did not return the questionnaire, which introduces the possibility of undercounting if home-schooling parents returned the questionnaire at lower rates than other parents. The U.S. Census Bureau, in a pilot survey administered after schools closed in response to the spread of Covid-19 in spring 2020, found that 5.4 percent of households with school-aged children had “at least one child [who was being] homeschooled.” The survey was repeated in early October 2020, when many schools remained closed, and found that the percentage had burgeoned to 11.1 percent.

Michael Farris, a home-schooling advocate and an appellate litigator, is the board chairman and founding president of the Home School Legal Defense Association.
Michael Farris, a home-schooling advocate and an appellate litigator, is the board chairman and founding president of the Home School Legal Defense Association.

Separately, the Harvard Program on Education Policy and Governance, in cooperation with Education Next, asked a representative sample of parents on three occasions over the course of the pandemic to identify the type of school their child attended—public, private, charter, or homeschool. The question resembled the one used by the U.S. Department of Education. The survey was conducted while many schools were closed to in-person learning—in May 2020, November 2020, and June 2021. According to the parents responding, 6 percent of the children were being home-schooled in May, 8 percent in November, and 9 percent the following June. Wondering whether these percentages were overestimates, the survey team asked those saying they were home-schooling in June 2021 to clarify by checking one of the following two items:

  • Child is enrolled in a school with a physical location but is learning remotely at home
  • Child is not enrolled in a school with a physical location

The researchers found that when they deducted from the home-schooling count all those who indicated the child was enrolled in a school, the share of students in the home-school sector in June 2021 fell from 9 percent to 6 percent. When their prior two estimates were adjusted downward accordingly, homeschooling was 4 percent in spring 2020 and 6 percent in fall 2020. The 6 percent estimate is twice the percentage estimated by the U.S. Department of Education in 2019 but only about half that estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau during the pandemic. Clearly, homeschooling is on the rise. Even cautious estimates indicate a doubling of the practice during the pandemic, and the actual shift could be greater.

Was the surge in homeschooling a temporary phenomenon induced by the pandemic, or will it become a permanent part of the education landscape? In a national poll conducted by EdChoice in 2021, 60 percent of parents held more favorable views toward homeschooling as a result of the pandemic. Market researchers are reporting significant, if unofficial, drops in school enrollments during the 2021–22 school year. Early reports say that some home-schooling newcomers are enjoying the flexibility, personalization, and efficient use of time that homeschooling allows. Families are also taking advantage of opportunities to combine homeschooling with part-time virtual learning, college coursework, neighborhood pods, and informal cooperatives, which are lessening the teaching demands on parents who home-school. But the 2021 Education Next survey revealed that many parents were finding education at home to be an exhausting undertaking and looked forward to a return to normal operations. Nearly a third reported they had “to reduce the number of hours [they] work[ed] in order to help with school work this year.” An even higher percentage said they had to rearrange their work schedule. A quarter of the 9 percent of those calling themselves homeschoolers said they did not plan to continue the practice.

Regulating Homeschooling

Brian Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute says that 3 million children were home-schooled in 2019.
Brian Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute says that 3 million children were home-schooled in 2019.

Homeschooling is now universally permitted in the United States, and the pandemic has likely solidified public acceptance of its practice. But some critics still call for regulatory safeguards to protect home-schooled children from abuse and to ensure they receive an adequate education. They point out that, among industrialized countries, the United States has the least-restrictive regulatory framework for homeschooling. Japan, Sweden, and Germany all but prohibit the practice, and many other European countries impose tight restrictions on it, such as requiring parents to hold educator certification or mandating that students take exams to demonstrate academic progress. In the United States, by contrast, 11 states do not require parents to notify authorities that they are home-schooling, according to the Coalition for Responsible Home Education, and many states that do require notification have few other restrictions. A small number of states mandate testing of home-schooled children or that certain subjects be taught by trained educators.

Harvard Law School professor Elizabeth Bartholet, who elsewhere has called for a presumptive ban on homeschooling, argued at the conference that regulatory authorities should screen prospective home-schooling parents and perform regular home visits. She asserts that there is “a significant subset of [home-schooled] children suffering from abuse and neglect.” High-profile cases of a horrifying nature help to make her point. In 2018, one such instance captured the nation’s attention when two parents who claimed to be home-schooling in California were found guilty of abusing, torturing, and imprisoning their 13 children for several years. Proponents of broader restrictions on homeschooling claimed that the permissive regulatory framework for homeschooling in California was what allowed these parents’ heinous acts to go unseen for several years. Citing these instances, critics of homeschooling are asking for state intervention. For example, a law proposed to the Iowa legislature in 2019 would have required school districts to conduct “quarterly home visits to check on the health and safety of children . . . receiving . . . private instruction.”

Harvard Law School professor Elizabeth Bartholet has called for the screening of home-schooling parents and home visits.
Harvard Law School professor Elizabeth Bartholet has called for the screening of home-schooling parents and home visits.

The Home School Legal Defense Association vigorously—and usually successfully—opposes these kinds of laws. At the conference, Mike Donnelly, the organization’s senior legal counsel, argued that parents have a constitutional right to direct the education of their children. State courts have largely agreed with this principle, and the U.S. Supreme Court, though not ruling on compulsory-education laws in general, found in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) that compelling Amish children to attend school beyond the age of 14 violated the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Donnelly also said that mandating home visits by social workers or requiring that physicians sign off on home-schooled children’s well being would be intrusive and impractical and would violate the constitutional rights of home-schoolers. He rejected the idea that child abuse is more prevalent in home-school households than elsewhere, and said that, if it occurs, other laws protecting children from abuse come into play. Economist Angela Dills of Western Carolina University said she found no clear evidence of an increase in reported incidents of abuse in states that relaxed bans on homeschooling. Charol Shakeshaft, an expert on sexual abuse in schools, said that her research suggests “it is highly unlikely that there’s higher incidence of sexual abuse of kids in the home-schooling world than in the public-school world.”

Mike Donnelly, legal counsel for the Home School Legal Defense Association, fights laws curtailing the rights of homeschoolers.
Mike Donnelly, legal counsel for the Home School Legal Defense Association, fights laws curtailing the rights of homeschoolers.

Effects on Student Learning

Many critics of homeschooling are more worried about ineffective or misguided instruction than about child abuse. They maintain that homeschoolers should be required to use standard educational materials and that their children should have to take statewide tests to measure academic progress. But many home-schooling families do not trust government officials to decide what can and cannot be taught, viewing such regulations as antithetical to the purpose of homeschooling. So far, they have succeeded, with the help of the potent Home School Legal Defense Association, in forestalling efforts to regulate curricular content.

What does the research evidence say about the academic progress of homeschoolers? Speaking at the PEPG conference, Robert Kunzman of Indiana University, who has synthesized the literature on homeschooling, said the “the data are mixed and inconclusive.” Research is underdeveloped in part because scholars cannot directly compare representative homeschoolers with peers attending school. Random assignment of students to homeschooling would be infeasible, unethical, and likely illegal. Statistical studies that attempt to adjust for differences between the background of homeschoolers and other students are often flawed because homeschoolers differ from other students in ways not captured by standard demographic variables. These studies tend to find homeschoolers performing better in literacy than in math, perhaps indicating that parents are better equipped to teach in that domain. Jennifer Jolly and Christian Wilkens, in their conference presentation, reported that college students who have been home-schooled are as likely to persist in their postsecondary education as other students. Still, studies of exam performance and college persistence do not include homeschoolers who never take an exam or go to college, making it difficult to generalize to the home-schooling community as a whole. As Kunzman observed, the only thing one can conclude for certain is that the data are too limited to sustain any strong conclusions about home-schooling learning outcomes.

Homeschooling Diversification

Beneath the debate over academic performance lies suspicion of homeschoolers, both in the mainstream media and in the academic community. They are often portrayed as a homogeneous group of southern, rural, white families who adhere to fundamentalist religious and cultural values. Sarah Grady, the director of the U.S. Department of Education survey of homeschoolers, finds some support for this stereotype. Homeschooling is more prevalent in towns and rural areas than in cities and suburbs, present more often in the South and West than in the Northeast and Midwest, more likely to be practiced by those of lower-income backgrounds, more frequently found among white families than Black or Asian families, and more likely to occur in two-parent households with multiple children. These patterns are just tendencies, however, not extreme differences across social groups. The U.S. Department of Education surveys show that homeschooling can be found in all demographic groups. Better-educated parents are just as likely to home-school as less-educated ones, and Hispanic parents are nearly as likely to do so as white parents. Time is eroding the stereotypical face of the home-schooling family—as is the pandemic.

What’s more, families choose to home-school for a variety of reasons. Even though fostering religious and moral instruction remains a common rationale, many parents cite other motivations. Nearly one third of families home-school to support a child with special needs or mental-health challenges, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Other parents believe they have particularly gifted children who will prosper under more intensive academic instruction. Indeed, almost three quarters of home-schooling families cite dissatisfaction with academic instruction at schools as an important reason for their decision. Safety and bullying issues at schools are also frequently named as contributing factors. There are many niche areas as well. Parents of children who train intensively in the performing arts or athletics may opt for homeschooling because of the scheduling flexibility and personalization that it offers. Some Native American homeschoolers want to maintain ancestral language and traditions. And then there are the “unschoolers,” who take a different approach altogether.

Reasons for homeschooling are multiplying, but the biggest change in recent years is the way in which home education is being conducted. The availability of online content is revolutionizing the practice. Access to sophisticated instructional material lowers barriers that previously discouraged parents from homeschooling. A parent confident in her ability to teach grammar, spelling, and literature but not in her mastery of long division, algebra, and calculus can now ask her child to turn to Khan Academy or other free or low-cost instruction for help. Homeschoolers are increasingly teaming up as well. Home-school cooperatives, through which families pool expertise and resources to deliver instruction, have grown; 43 percent of homeschoolers participated in such groups in 2019, up from about one third in 2016, according to the U.S. Department of Education survey. Another trend is the use of hybrid models, in which home-schooled children also attend public and private schools or even local universities part-time.

Despite this diversity of home-schooling approaches, critics warn that many home-schooling families are insular, promoting religious fundamentalism, intolerance, and anti-democratic sentiments. Research casts considerable doubt on such claims. With few exceptions, studies find no systematic differences in the opportunities for social experience available to home-schooled children and public-school children. Any differences that do turn up are typically in the homeschoolers’ favor. Data from the U.S. Department of Education survey suggest that home-schooled children participate in an array of activities that involve interacting with other children and that they are more likely to go to libraries and museums and attend other cultural activities than their peers in public schools (see “Homeschool Happens Everywhere,” features, Fall 2020). Homeschooling may even strengthen familial bonds by ensuring a level of attentiveness from parents that fosters positive social development. It could also, as some have found, end up shielding children from negative peer or social influences that undermine healthy social development.

Homeschooled Adults

While there is little evidence that home-schooled children are worse off academically or socially in childhood, it’s possible that a lack of exposure to mainstream norms and institutions could make home-schooled children ill equipped to navigate higher education and careers as adults. According to Jolly and Wilkens, there is little evidence that home-schooled children end up doing poorly in life. College grades, persistence rates, and graduation rates are generally no different for those who were home-schooled than for those educated in other ways. Trends in employment and income for former homeschoolers also indicate that they tend to do as well as others. Adults who were home-schooled as children are as well integrated socially as their traditionally schooled counterparts, and they navigate their careers just as successfully.

Researchers nonetheless caution that studies of homeschooling are limited by the data available to them. As mentioned, states often do not have thorough records of the practice. Some home-schooling families are not keen to participate in studies and research surveys. Research findings may be biased because of non-participation by these families. Complicating matters further, it is difficult to generalize about homeschooling because it embodies a diversity of groups, rationales, and ways of carrying out home education. Few analyses draw distinctions among homeschoolers, often treating them as a uniform group despite substantial heterogeneity in the population. Claims about homeschooling should be tempered until we have more-complete data on this rapidly growing and changing practice.

The Future of Homeschooling

Our conference found no convincing evidence that homeschooling is either preferable to or worse than the education a student receives at a public or private school. The success of homeschooling seems to depend largely on the individual child and parents. If so, it may make sense to allow families to decide whether homeschooling is right for them.

It remains to be seen whether the growth of homeschooling experienced during the pandemic will persist. If homeschooling does hold onto its current share of the school-age population, homeschooling will have become the most rapidly growing educational sector at a time when charter-school growth has slowed and private-school enrollments are at risk of further decline. The meaning of homeschooling could also change dramatically in the coming years. It may be less of an either-or question, as homeschooling is combined with more-formal learning contexts, whether they be online experiences, neighborhood pods, cooperatives, or joint undertakings with public and private schools. Eric Wearne of Kennesaw State University says that “homeschooling is growing, but everyone should be prepared for it to look a lot stranger in the coming years.” If Wearne’s assessment is correct, homeschoolers, once thought of as traditionalists holding onto the past, may be an advance guard moving toward a new educational future.

Daniel Hamlin is assistant professor of educational leadership and policy studies at the University of Oklahoma. Paul E. Peterson is the Henry Lee Shattuck Professor of Government at Harvard University, director of Harvard’s Program on Education Policy and Governance, and senior editor of Education Next.

This article appeared in the Spring 2022 issue of Education Next. Suggested citation format:

Hamlin, D., and Peterson, P.E. (2022). Homeschooling Skyrocketed During the Pandemic, but What Does the Future Hold? Education Next, 22(2), 18-24.

For more, please see “The Top 20 Education Next Articles of 2023.”

The post Homeschooling Skyrocketed During the Pandemic, but What Does the Future Hold? appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49714528
Homeschool Happens Everywhere https://www.educationnext.org/homeschool-happens-everywhere-less-formal-instructin-more-family-community-activities/ Tue, 28 Jul 2020 05:00:36 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49711926 Less formal instruction, but more family and community activities

The post Homeschool Happens Everywhere appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
Three photos of homeschoolers participating in activities
Homeschoolers in action at, from left, the White Plains Library in Westchester County, N.Y.; an extracurricular drumming class in Mount Rainier, Md., and a program that is a blend of homeschooling and traditional classroom instruction at Da Vinci Charter School in Hawthorne, Calif.

Homeschooled students are isolated and at urgent risk of harm from maltreatment, under-education, and parental abuse. That’s the case Harvard Law School professor Elizabeth Bartholet made in her recent call to ban the practice, which has been legal in all 50 U.S. states for more than a quarter-century. Ironically, Bartholet’s article in the Arizona Law Review appeared just as millions of parents were forced to turn to homeschooling temporarily, under stay-at-home orders that closed schools across the country.

It can be difficult to know precisely what, when, and how the nation’s homeschooled students are learning. After all, privacy and the freedom to explore education as families see fit, with limited government oversight, is a defining feature. But the best evidence we have indicates that homeschooled students are far from isolated.

By looking at a recent national survey of American households conducted by the U.S. Department of Education, I found that homeschooled students are more likely to participate in cultural and family activities than their public-school peers. They seem to spend less time on formal instruction in humanities subjects, but more time visiting libraries and museums and attending community events. If public exposure protects children and cultural knowledge is a major goal for education, concerns that homeschooled students are in danger appear, at the very least, overblown.

Figure 1: A Growing Share of Homeschooled Students

Who Homeschools Their Children?

Homeschooling is both a growing and changing practice. The number of families reporting that they homeschool their children grew to 1.7 million by 2016, representing 3.3 percent of all U.S. students aged 5-17, according to the National Household Education Survey (see Figure 1). On that survey, a nationally representative sample of families also answered a range of questions about their demographics and levels of education. Responses were collected from 14,075 families in all, including 552 homeschool families across the United States.

Overall, homeschool parents are more likely to be white or Hispanic and are less likely to hold college degrees (see Figure 2). Some 55 percent of homeschool families are white compared to 49 percent of public-school families, and 29 percent of homeschool families are Hispanic compared to 22 percent in public schools. Homeschool families are also more likely to have three or more children than families in public or private schools. Some 32 percent of homeschool households include an adult with at least one college degree, compared to 36 percent of public-school families and 64 percent of families whose children attend private schools.

Figure 2: Characteristics of Homeschool Families

The 2016 National Household Education Survey also asked homeschool families questions about formal instruction and participation in enrichment activities, pointing to some of the ways in which the practice has evolved. Thanks to the Internet, homeschool families have more resources and share larger communities than in decades past. Online clearinghouses, blogs, and social-media groups for families who follow particular educational philosophies are readily available. Casual parent groups pool resources, formal homeschooling cooperatives bring students together for hands-on science experiments and dance classes, and homeschool sports leagues give students the opportunity to play on a team. On the survey, some 30 percent of homeschool families reported children received some instruction through a homeschool organization or cooperative.

In addition, with ever-expanding access to online content and educational technology, the term “hybrid homeschooling” has emerged to describe families who combine home education with part-time attendance at a virtual or brick-and-mortar school. According to the Education Commission of the States, 26 states allow homeschoolers to participate in enrichment activities at a local public school, and states like Vermont and Nevada have allowed homeschoolers to enroll in classes at public schools to augment their studies. And that doesn’t include the sorts of virtual learning programs that have become commonplace during the Covid-19 pandemic: live group enrichment classes like Outschool, online community-college courses, video teaching tools like Khan Academy, and individual tutoring via text and video chats.

A Cultural Concern

One worry about homeschooling rests on the idea of “cultural capital,” the valuable constellation of cultural knowledge, behaviors, tastes, and physical markers of status that help adults navigate their communities and boost their likelihood of success. When French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu introduced this idea in the late 1970s, he described cultural capital as a possession of the upper class, arguing that affluent individuals naturally transmit cultural capital to one another through rituals, practices, and values. Institutions, in theory, reward those who possess upper-class cultural capital, associating it with individual ability. Empirical research, however, suggests that cultural capital is not necessarily limited to the affluent.

In thinking about how to measure this intangible force, scholars have looked at exposure to various activities that may enable the acquisition of cultural capital, such as visiting an art gallery or museum, experiencing a live artistic performance, and visiting a zoo, aquarium, athletic event, or historical site. In looking specifically at children, scholars have also considered activities like visiting a bookstore or library and shared reading, as well as parent-child interactions like discussing books, music, or art.

Many traditional school experiences may impart cultural capital, such as participation in music and art classes, involvement in student clubs, and study of foreign-language and classical literature. So the concern for homeschooled students is that they lack access to these experiences at home. Supplies found in art rooms, books available in school libraries, and instruments accessible in music class could be cost-prohibitive for individual families to offer. A sole parent-teacher could struggle to be a multi-subject content expert in these many arenas. The common trope of the poorly socialized homeschooled student who knows little about the outside world is rooted in these assumptions.

However, what if this is not the case? The evolving nature of homeschooling could instead offer expanded opportunities for students to gain cultural capital. There appears to be a growing array of online education resources and part-time enrollment programs at postsecondary institutions. Homeschool days are common at child-friendly museums, as are references to homeschooling cooperatives. One-to-one instruction could progress at a faster pace than traditional group classes, freeing up more time for excursions and extracurricular activities (see “The Educational Value of Field Trips,” research, Winter 2014). The question is, how do homeschool families spend their time, and to what extent are they creating opportunities for students to obtain cultural capital?

The 2016 National Household Educational Survey offers a rich set of data to examine that question, though it has some limitations. First, the results are derived from self-reports, and respondents may overestimate their children’s participation in cultural and family activities. Given their unconventional decision to educate their children outside of formal education systems, homeschool families may be particularly susceptible to this social-desirability bias. Alternatively, their lack of regard for convention may make them worry less about what others think.

The activities covered by the survey also may not include the ways that families could provide different experiences for their children. For example, many if not most homeschool families are from conservative Christian households who report religious and moral instruction as key influences. This background may influence the types of cultural excursions they value.

Finally, the information the survey provides is relatively basic. For example, reports of formal instruction are based on a yes/no format and do not include the frequency or rigor of activities. Reports of family activities like arts and crafts or playing sports may simply capture the main activities of homeschooling rather than something above and beyond what students are doing for “school.”

What Homeschool Families Said

Families who reported educating their children at home were asked a range of questions about their homeschooling practices, including which adult primarily leads learning, how many days a week they homeschool, which subjects are taught, and whether their child receives instruction from a cooperative or school. All surveyed families answered questions about cultural and family activities. I compared reported participation in those activities by homeschool families and by families whose children attend public and private schools.

In terms of formal learning, 29 percent of homeschool families reported teaching all four main humanities subjects: art, music, foreign language, and literature. Another 29 percent reported teaching three of them, and 42 percent reported teaching two or less. This suggests that formal instructional opportunities for cultural-capital acquisition could be lacking for many homeschooled students. Even though only homeschool households report on the teaching of these subjects on the survey, other national data has indicated that students attending public schools tend to receive instruction in arts, music, literature, and foreign language at higher rates.

Homeschool organizations or cooperatives appear to increase the breadth of content to which homeschooled children receive exposure. Nearly three-quarters of families whose children receive group instruction report formal study in at least three humanities subjects. By comparison, among families whose children do not participate in homeschool groups, approximately half report formal instruction in three to four of the humanities subjects.

However, my analysis shows that homeschooled students are more likely to engage in activities outside the home that can contribute to cultural capital (see Figure 3). In comparing survey responses for homeschool and public-school families, I find homeschool families are 17 percentage points more likely to visit an art gallery or museum, 22 percentage points more likely to visit a library, and 17 percentage points more likely to attend an event sponsored by a community, religious, or ethnic group. They are also 8 percentage points more likely to visit a zoo or aquarium, and 7 percentage points more likely to visit a bookstore. These patterns seem to indicate that homeschooled students may gain exposure to cultural capital through excursions, alongside or in lieu of formal instruction.

Figure 3: Greater Participation in Cultural Activities for Homeschooled Students

I then investigate the likelihood of homeschooled students participating in family activities that may be associated with cultural capital and find similar results (see Figure 4). Compared to their public-school peers, homeschooled students are 17 percentage points more likely to do arts and crafts and 13 percentage points more likely to work on projects that entail building, making, or fixing an object with family. In addition, homeschool households are 9 percentage points more likely more likely to report playing sports or doing physical activities together.

In general, families where at least one parent has a college degree report greater participation in most activities, particularly culturally rich excursions like visiting museums and art galleries, going to bookstores and libraries, and attending live artistic performances. However, this well-documented association between parents’ education level and cultural activities is less evident for homeschool households. Homeschool families are the least likely to report having a parent or guardian with a college degree but are the most likely to indicate participation in cultural and family activities. Interestingly, less-educated homeschool families report more cultural and family activities than public- or private-school families where at least one parent has a college degree.

Figure 4: More Family Activities for Homeschooled Students

Looking Beyond Formal Instruction

While the practice of homeschooling seems to be undergoing a transformation, the debate and criticisms raised by Bartholet remain dominated by conventional assumptions and timeworn concerns. Worries about deprivation for homeschooled children do not appear substantiated by the survey findings I examine.

Homeschool families report higher rates of participation in cultural and family activities, suggesting that students have opportunities to acquire cultural capital outside of formal instructional time. Indeed, increased opportunities for hands-on learning may be a fundamental reason why some families opt to homeschool. Participation in these types of activities also may play a compensatory role, possibly offsetting what may be forfeited by not attending a traditional brick-and-mortar school. And it may offer a glimpse of the potential unique benefits to homeschooling, such as more frequent exposure to museums and art galleries and other community-based opportunities to engage with high culture.

This initial foray into the relationship between cultural capital and homeschooling underscores lines of inquiry for future research. Little is known about how homeschool parents attempt to teach art, music, and foreign languages. Furthermore, it remains uncertain whether a lack of instruction in humanities subjects among homeschool households signifies a rejection of conventional forms of instruction or is a consequence of unobserved barriers that these families face.

These findings cannot fully answer the concerns raised by Bartholet about child safety and homeschooling. Child neglect and abuse are urgent problems in some share of all families, and it is true that some children find refuge and access social-service supports through their schools. However, national survey data does not indicate that this is a concern for the majority. Critiques that homeschooled children grow up in cultural and social isolation may be overstated and mischaracterize the practice.

A richer understanding of homeschooling is especially relevant as families across the United States contemplate an uncertain return to full-time formal instruction in school buildings in the fall of 2020. Taking the activities of homeschool families as a guide, reduced classroom time or continued closures may potentially free up more time for different sorts of educational activities that parents and children can pursue at home. Even if museums and libraries remain closed, they have created rich online tours and educational programs in the wake of the pandemic, like those offered by the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, the Louvre, NASA’s Langley Research Center, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Is the knowledge students gain from these sorts of activities equivalent to what they develop through experiences at school? What might be the benefits, as well as the limitations, of exploring education in this way on a broad scale? In the pandemic age, we may be about to find out.

Daniel Hamlin is assistant professor at the University of Oklahoma.

This article appeared in the Fall 2020 issue of Education Next. Suggested citation format:

Hamlin, D. (2020). Homeschool Happens Everywhere: Less formal instruction, but more family and community activities. Education Next, 20(4), 28-33.

The post Homeschool Happens Everywhere appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49711926
Have States Maintained High Expectations for Student Performance? https://www.educationnext.org/have-states-maintained-high-expectations-student-performance-analysis-2017-proficiency-standards/ Tue, 22 May 2018 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.educationnext.org/have-states-maintained-high-expectations-student-performance-analysis-2017-proficiency-standards/ An analysis of 2017 state proficiency standards

The post Have States Maintained High Expectations for Student Performance? appeared first on Education Next.

]]>

On Tuesday, May 22, 2018, EdNext hosted “Are State Proficiency Standards Falling?” at the The Johnson Center at the Hoover Institution in Washington, D.C. Watch the livestream of the discussion here.


The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), passed into law in 2015, explicitly prohibits the federal government from creating incentives to set national standards. The law represents a major departure from recent federal initiatives, such as Race to the Top, which beginning in 2009 encouraged the adoption of uniform content standards and expectations for performance. At one point, 46 states had committed themselves to implementing Common Core standards designed to ensure consistent benchmarks for student learning across the country. But when public opinion turned against the Common Core brand, numerous states moved to revise the standards or withdraw from them.

Although early indications are that most state revisions of Common Core have been minimal, the retreat from the standards carries with it the possibility of a “race to the bottom,” as one state after another lowers the bar that students must clear in order to qualify as academically proficient. The political advantages of a lower hurdle are obvious: when it is easier for students to meet a state’s performance standards, a higher percentage of them will be deemed “proficient” in math and reading. Schools will appear to be succeeding, and state and local school administrators may experience less pressure to improve outcomes. The ultimate scenario was lampooned by comedian Stephen Colbert: “Here’s what I suggest: instead of passing the test, just have kids pass a test … Eventually, we’ll reach a point when ‘math proficiency’ means, ‘you move when poked with a stick,’ and ‘reading proficiency’ means, ‘your breath will fog a mirror.’” A reader of the Dallas Morning News saw nothing funny about the situation: “Tougher standards for students and teachers are a must if the U.S. is to avoid becoming a Third World economy.”

So, has the starting gun been fired on a race to the bottom? Have the bars for reaching academic proficiency fallen as many states have loosened their commitment to Common Core? And, is there any evidence that the states that have raised their proficiency bars since 2009 have seen greater growth in student learning?

In a nutshell, the answers to these three questions are no, no, and, so far, none.

On average, state proficiency standards have remained as high as they were in 2015. And they are much higher today than they were in 2009 when the Common Core movement began. That year, the percentage of students found to be proficient in math and reading on state exams was 37 percentage points higher than on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), an exam that is widely recognized as maintaining a high bar for academic proficiency. By 2015, that gap had narrowed to just 10 percent. Now, recently released data for 2017 reveal a difference of only 9 percent.

The news is not all good. Even though states have raised their standards, they have not found a way to translate these new benchmarks into higher levels of student test performance. We find no correlation at all between a lift in state standards and a rise in student performance, which is the central objective of higher proficiency bars. While higher proficiency standards may still serve to boost academic performance, our evidence suggests that day has not yet arrived.

Initiatives to Raise State Standards

Differences among the states in their expectations for students became apparent in 2002 with the enactment of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The law required states to administer examinations to students in grades 3 to 8 (and once during high school) in both math and reading. It also asked each state to set a performance bar for its tests that defined student proficiency at each grade level. This achievement level varied widely from one state to the next. Little Roberto and young Kaitlin could become “proficient” simply by moving from New Mexico, a state with high standards, to Arizona, a state with mediocre ones. By 2009, Massachusetts, Missouri, Hawaii, and Washington State had also set their proficiency bars at levels approaching established national benchmarks. But numerous states, including New York, Illinois, Texas, and, most especially, Tennessee, Alabama and Nebraska, had set much lower targets.

That same year, the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers received funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to set national education standards at each grade level. This effort to establish uniform learning aspirations and goals came to be known as the Common Core State Standards. The standards prescribed the math and reading content that students should master at each grade level, not the level required to demonstrate proficiency. Even so, a major goal was to raise expectations for proficiency in math and reading across the nation—the reasoning being that once states defined what all students should learn at a given grade level, they could devise rigorous assessments to test how well they have learned the material. In other words, content standards and proficiency standards go hand in hand.

The effort to develop national content standards was given a boost by the Obama administration’s Race to the Top initiative, which offered a total of $4.35 billion in grants through a competitive process that gave an edge to states proposing to implement a variety of reforms, including the adoption of standards akin to the ones promoted by Common Core.

Race to the Top is generally thought to have motivated many states to implement the Common Core, though the Obama administration denied direct involvement, maintaining that the enterprise was strictly state-driven. What is certain is that all but four states (Texas, Virginia, Nebraska, and Alaska) ended up adopting the standards. Yet growing criticisms of the Common Core standards by an unusual alliance of teachers’ organizations and Tea Party enthusiasts greatly weakened political support for the standards. The federal government, under ESSA, now prohibits federal incentives that could facilitate the adoption of national standards. In addition, many states either formally withdrew or announced their intention to revise them. Just what constitutes a withdrawal or a revision has become a matter of contention even among apparently neutral observers. According to Abt Associates, three states had withdrawn and another 23 either revised or were reported to have expressed an intention to revise the standards as of January 2017. But according to a September 2017 account in Education Week, only 10 states had withdrawn or undertaken a “major revision” of the standards.


 

Listen to Paul E. Peterson and Dan Hamlin discuss this article on The Education Exchange podcast.

 


Grading States on Proficiency Standards

Given the controversy over the number of states that have moved away from the content standards that comprise the Common Core, it is all the more important to observe empirically what is happening to state proficiency standards. Since 2005, researchers at Education Next have graded state proficiency standards on an A–F scale. To generate these letter grades, we compare the percentage of students identified as proficient in reading and math on state assessments to the percentage of students so labeled on the more-rigorous NAEP. Administered by the U.S. Department of Education, NAEP is widely considered to have a high bar for proficiency in math and reading. Because representative samples of students in every state take the same set of examinations, NAEP provides a robust common metric for gauging student performance across the nation and for evaluating the strength of state-level measures of proficiency. The higher the percentage of students found proficient on the exam of a particular state, compared to the percentage so identified by NAEP, the lower the state’s proficiency standard is judged to be. In 2017, nine states had set such a high bar that they reported a slightly lower percentage of proficient students than was reported by NAEP, earning these states an A in our grading system. We also give an A grade to states whose proficiency levels are closely aligned with NAEP’s. When a much higher percentage of students are found proficient on a state exam than on the NAEP test, then the grade falls—sometimes so dramatically that some states in previous years have received an F. Our analysis looks at only the percentage of students who are deemed proficient on the state exams, not the content of the exams or the courses taught at each grade level.

NAEP is administered to representative samples of students in each state every two years in grades 4 and 8 in math and reading. In these years, comparison data for state and NAEP tests are available for participating students. The 2017 results were released in April of this year. After computing percentage differences between state and NAEP proficiency levels, we determine how much each state’s difference is above or below the average difference for all states over eight years (2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2017) for which both state and NAEP data are available. When assigning letter grades, we use a curve for the current year and also update previous years’ letter grades to reflect the current status of state standards indicated by newly released data. Since new data are used to calculate grades from both the contemporary period and for prior years, a state’s grade in one year may differ from the grade given in our previous reports. For example, the grades for 2009 reported here differ from those Education Next researchers reported in 2010 because average state standards have risen since then. (See sidebar for further details on methodology.)

Maintaining High Standards

Comparing state exams to NAEP, we are able to identify changes in states’ proficiency bars over time. Figure 1 displays the change in the average state proficiency level between 2005 and 2017 relative to NAEP. From 2005 to 2009, the states, on average, made no progress toward lifting their proficiency bars. While there was no “race to the bottom,” neither was there any trend toward setting higher expectations. But in 2009, when the Common Core movement was initiated, and shortly thereafter, when Race to the Top nudged states to adopt the standards, many states began using exams more closely aligned with the Common Core. The strength of states’ proficiency standards increased sharply so that by 2015 only 10 percentage points separated the average state proficiency bar from the NAEP standard.

In 2017, the large leap forward endured. State proficiency standards not only avoided the expected slip many had feared in the wake of ESSA’s passage in 2015, but they improved slightly between 2015 and 2017 and now show only an average lag of 9 percentage points relative to NAEP.

When the Common Core initiative began in 2009, not a single state achieved, by today’s standards, an A for having a proficiency bar tightly aligned with NAEP, and only Massachusetts and Missouri received B+ or B grades. Six years later, dramatic progress had taken place, with 16 states receiving A grades and 27 others receiving grades in the range of B+ to B-. That trend has held up and has even drifted slightly upward by 2017. Table 1 shows these latest results. Sixteen states and the District of Columbia receive a grade of A or A-, and 27 receive a grade that falls between B+ and B-. Only six states received C+ to C- grades, while Iowa was the only state to receive a grade lower than a C-. By contrast, 29 states were awarded a D+ grade or lower for the proficiency bar they set in 2009.

Table 2 shows that a number of states have made particularly dramatic improvements. Tennessee, for instance, skyrocketed from an F grade in 2009 to an A in 2017. Illinois went from a D- to an A and Georgia from an F to a B+. In total, 4 of 5 states with F grades in 2009 achieved a C+ or higher in 2017, and 9 of 24 states with D- to D+ grades in 2009 received A grades in 2017. Three Midwestern states—Missouri, Iowa, and Minnesota—made the least amount of progress, with Missouri being the one state in the nation to see its proficiency gap with NAEP widen between 2009 and 2017.

Improved Proficiency Standards and Test-Score Growth

Supporters of higher proficiency standards expect them to lead to improved student achievement. As the Common Core website puts it: “State school chiefs and governors recognized the value of consistent, real-world learning goals and launched this effort to ensure all students, regardless of where they live, are graduating high school prepared for college, career, and life.” To determine whether the rise in state proficiency standards between 2009 and 2017 has translated into improvements in student learning, we looked at the relationship between changes in standards and changes in NAEP performance (test-score growth) over this time period. We calculated growth in student performance for each state between 2009 and 2017 on the NAEP reading and math exams administered to students in 4th and 8th grade. (To make comparisons across the four exams, we calculate growth in standard deviations.)

Figure 2 displays the relationship between the average change in proficiency standards in each state between 2009 and 2017 and the average amount of growth in test-score performance. The nearly flat line in the figure reveals virtually no relationship between rising proficiency standards and test-score growth over this time period. These results, while disheartening, do not prove that state standards are ineffective. Test-score growth could have been impeded by the Great Recession of 2008–09 and concomitant declining school expenditures, or rising pension and medical costs that deflected financial resources from the classroom, or the end of the NCLB accountability system, or any one (or combination) of many other factors that may impinge upon student learning. It is also possible that the impact of rising standards is not yet visible. After all, it took years to design and implement the complex Common Core standards, and it may take still more time for high standards to have measurable impacts on student learning. For Common Core supporters, the most hopeful element in Figure 2 is the placement of the state of Tennessee. Tennessee has been touted for its faithful implementation of higher standards (even though the state revised its Common Core State Standards), and it has also experienced both rising standards and moderately improved student performance over the past eight years. Although no firm conclusions can be drawn from any one state’s results, neither should the data presented here be treated as a signal that the campaign for higher standards is a failure. The final ending to this tale remains to be written.

The Direction of Proficiency Standards

At present, student proficiency standards in most states are closely aligned with rigorous national proficiency standards as set by NAEP. The relatively close alignment between state and national assessments represents a major improvement from 2009 when the Common Core initiative began. Although 46 states adopted the standards, the introduction of ESSA has given states more freedom to determine how to test students and it prevents the federal government from encouraging national standards. While some states have withdrawn from Common Core or revised the standards, thus far these moves do not appear to have weakened state proficiency standards. Even so, the primary driving force behind raising the bar for academic proficiency is to increase academic achievement, and it appears that education leaders have not figured out how to translate high expectations into greater student learning.

Daniel Hamlin is a postdoctoral fellow at the Program on Education Policy and Governance (PEPG) at the Harvard Kennedy School. Paul E. Peterson is professor of government at Harvard University, PEPG director, and senior editor of Education Next.


Method for Grading the States

Since 2003, a representative state-level sample of 4th- and 8th-grade students has taken the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) every other year (2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2017). To grade states on the rigor of their proficiency levels, we compare the percentage of a state’s students labeled “proficient” on NAEP to the percentage of students identified as “proficient” on state examinations in math and reading for 4th- and 8th-grade students over the eight years for which data are available for the two tests.

Education Next has graded the states every other year beginning in 2005. For each report, we calculate state grades using previous year’s data as well as newly released data from the most recent year. After computing the percentage difference between the NAEP and state exams, we calculate the standard deviation of this difference for each year. We then determine how many standard deviations each state’s difference is above or below the average difference for all states for all available years. In applying new data to the grading scale, we not only determine state grades for the current year of analysis but also update state grades from previous years to reflect the present status of standards indicated by newly released data. We also updated data for several states, collecting previously unreported state-level student proficiency rates from prior years.

The grading scale for state grades is set so that if marks were randomly assigned in a normal distribution for all eight years, 10 percent of the states would earn an A, 20 percent a B, 40 percent a C, 20 percent a D, and 10 percent an F. We do not require the meeting of any stipulated cutoff in differences with the NAEP standard to award a specific grade. Instead, we rank states against each other in accordance with their current position in the distribution of state and NAEP differences for all eight years. When the U.S. Department of Education used an alternative method to estimate 2007 state proficiency standards, its results were highly correlated with the EdNext results at the 0.85 level (see Paul E. Peterson, “A Year Late and a Million (?) Dollars Long—the U.S. Proficiency Standards Report,” Education Next Blog, August 22, 2011).

A Sample Calculation

To illustrate how we calculate state grades, consider Idaho. In 2017, the state reported that 47 percent of its 4th-grade students were proficient on the state examination in math. However, only 40 percent of Idaho’s 4th-grade students scored as proficient on NAEP. The percentage difference of 7 points between the Idaho and NAEP exams is better than the average difference of 24 percentage points observed for all states over eight years on 4th-grade math. As a result, Idaho’s scores are approximately 1 standard deviation higher than the average difference between state and NAEP 4th-grade math exams for all states over eight years, earning the state a letter grade of B for the strength of its proficiency standards for 4th-grade math.

This article appeared in the Fall 2018 issue of Education Next. Suggested citation format:

Hamlin, D., and Peterson, P.E. (2018). Have States Maintained High Expectations for Student Performance? An analysis of 2017 state proficiency standards. Education Next, 18(4), 42-49.

The post Have States Maintained High Expectations for Student Performance? appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49708329
Closing the Achievement Gap on Chicago’s South Side https://www.educationnext.org/closing-the-achievement-gap-chicago-south-side-book-review-ambitious-elementary-school-mcghee-hassrick-raudenbush-rosen/ Tue, 20 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.educationnext.org/closing-the-achievement-gap-chicago-south-side-book-review-ambitious-elementary-school-mcghee-hassrick-raudenbush-rosen/ A review of The Ambitious Elementary School: Its Conception, Design, and Implications for Educational Equality by Elizabeth McGhee Hassrick, Stephen W. Raudenbush, and Lisa Rosen

The post Closing the Achievement Gap on Chicago’s South Side appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
The Ambitious Elementary School: Its Conception, Design, and Implications for Educational Equality
by Elizabeth McGhee Hassrick, Stephen W. Raudenbush, and Lisa Rosen
University of Chicago Press, 2017, $25.00, 240 pages

As reviewed by Daniel Hamlin

Can schools eliminate educational inequality? Many of the nation’s schools are tasked with educating large numbers of disadvantaged students who, at the start of kindergarten, already lag far behind their peers. The structures in place to remedy this problem are fairly standard across schools—and, as the authors of The Ambitious Elementary School contend, inadequate for the challenge at hand. Authors Elizabeth McGhee Hassrick, Stephen W. Raudenbush, and Lisa Rosen argue that schools can close achievement gaps, but only if they are willing to depart from the conventional organizational model. They document a “sweeping” alternative observed during a five-year study of two charter elementary schools operating on Chicago’s South Side.

To justify an organizational redesign, the authors describe perceived limitations of the “private autonomous” model found in most schools. They assert that this approach produces wide variation in teacher quality, little curricular coherence, and insufficient instructional time. The book chronicles an attempt to address these issues in Chicago’s public schools led by Anthony Bryk and his colleagues at the University of Chicago in the early 1990s. Believing that a “shared systematic” approach was necessary for school improvement, the Chicago team sought to systematize classroom instruction, enhance school-community collaboration, and lengthen the school day and year. According to the Hassrick, Raudenbush, and Rosen, however, institutional norms in district schools presented too many obstacles to realizing these operational changes.

In 1996, Illinois passed a charter school law, which, by authorizing the creation of privately managed, autonomous public schools, ironically gave Bryk and his team another opportunity to pursue their shared systematic approach. When the University of Chicago designers founded two charter schools serving predominantly low-income African American students, they greatly expanded the school day, week, and year. In the 2009-10 academic year, for instance, students received approximately 1,360 hours more instructional time than their counterparts in Chicago’s public schools, with school schedules resembling those of students in Seoul, Shanghai, or Tokyo. Weekdays begin with before-school tutoring at 7:00 a.m. and end with after-school enrichment classes at 6:00 p.m. There are also academic and enrichment courses for several hours on Saturdays.

While many high-performing charter schools increase instructional time, the shared systematic model is unique in its focus on continuous personalized support. This approach requires teachers to relinquish much of their autonomy by accepting “intensive guidance” from an instructional coordinator and adhering to an explicit series of learning progressions in math and reading. The two charter schools use routine diagnostic assessments to respond to individual learning needs and hold regular team meetings between teachers and the instructional coordinator to align instruction and improve sharing of expertise. Students also receive ongoing socioemotional support from a full-time social worker, and a full-time parent engagement director is expected to coordinate with school staff, families, and students on a continuous basis.

Under this shared systematic model, academic performance in the two South Side charter schools soared. African American students advanced from the bottom quarter of Chicago’s test score distribution for white students to the 46th percentile in reading and math, essentially closing the racial achievement gap. The authors conclude by calling for wider application of the shared systematic model, asserting that “the children are ready” if we are willing to commit the time and resources needed to alleviate educational inequality.

Despite the book’s optimism, questions about the scalability of the shared systematic approach remain. As the authors note, the operators of the two South Side charters schools were some of the country’s most skilled urban educators and researchers. Would the shared systematic model be as exceptional without such exceptional leadership? Costs are still another issue. The authors admit that per-pupil funding in the two charter schools was higher than in other Chicago public schools. The estimated difference, possibly between $2,000 and $3,000 per pupil, was less than one might expect given the expansion of instructional time, enrichment programs, and staff, but the operators’ expertise seems to be an important intangible benefit that comparisons of line-item expenditures do not capture.

A final question relates to student intakes. Although the two charter schools primarily serve African American families eligible for free or reduced-price school lunches, South Side neighborhood district schools likely experience a higher degree of disadvantage. Families who opted for the two charter schools not only sought out educational opportunity for their children but also were expected to participate actively in their children’s education. Whether the shared systematic model would produce similar results in district schools serving different families is uncertain.

In fairness, the authors do consider the scalability of their model. They are skeptical that charter schools provide an appropriate channel for achieving greater scale, but the organizational barriers in conventional public schools also seem to offer little hope for widespread implementation. One suggestion that the authors make is for universities to assume a direct role in the process of school improvement, which is an idea worth contemplating. Yet, one wonders how many university researchers possess the mindset and expertise needed to operate effective schools.

These uncertainties aside, The Ambitious Elementary School provides a compelling model for school improvement centered on personalized instructional procedures, school-community collaboration, and greatly expanded instructional time. It also illustrates how innovation in charter schools may generate strategies that can be tested by district schools. Readers who are interested in the operations of high-performing charter schools or concerned with school improvement broadly will find much to value in the book.

Daniel Hamlin is a postdoctoral fellow in the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

The post Closing the Achievement Gap on Chicago’s South Side appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49707784