A very interesting quick statistical analysis of the achievement outcomes, education spending, and student needs in Central Falls, RI was posted on Bruce Baker’s blog, an Associate Professor in the Graduate School of Education at Rutgers. Dr. Baker is an expert in school finance policy and teacher/school labor markets. Anyhow, his “quick and dirty analysis” (as my stats Professor Judy Singer would say) implies that when looking at Central Falls student achievement outcomes in the context of statewide achievement trends, controlling for education spending and student need (as indicated by a poverty level proxy), the outcomes are as one might predict, and are certainly not an anomaly within the state. Put this quick and dirty finding in the context of the fact that RI is the only state in the country without state public education funding formula and one might be less shocked at the dismal educational outcomes we find in CF.
Now, there are plenty of holes in Dr. Baker’s quick statistical analysis. For example, the model doesn’t account for the extremely high student push out rate–more popularly called drop out rate–in CF. Students who are not in school are obviously not included in test score data, thus when other communities push fewer students out of school, they are then including more students in their test score data. The achievement, or lack thereof, of students who are no longer in high school–over 50% by most estimates in CF–is not counted for or against the district in terms of test scores. But, it still raises an important issue before we go on believing that merely firing all the teachers in CF will actually help solve anything.
I believe it is fair and necessary to expect the world of teachers. We need to expect teachers to be ready and willing to do whatever it takes to ensure the quality and effective education of students. But while we hold this expectation we have an equal obligation to provide the necessary supports and resources for teachers to do their jobs effectively. When data like Dr. Baker’s suggest that CF is under-resourced (and we know this to be true because of RI’s antiquated state education funding mechanisms), it is not too much of a stretch to assume that the teachers in CF are under-supported. Just as we can’t expect students to learn without the proper supports, we can’t expect teachers to teach without just the same. Instead of focusing on getting rid of teachers, we need to focus more on getting support for teachers so that they can better do their jobs. And, instead of rallying to save their jobs, teachers need to rally to demand the kinds of resources and support that they need to do better at their jobs (and should have been rallying for past umpteen years in CF, not just now when their personal livelihoods are at stake). Then, if we can document all the units of support provided and student achievement is still not improving, start the paper trail, and fire teachers with just cause.
Bottom Up Education 
Thanks for jumping in on this. Nice point on the drops. Had to work with the data readily at hand for the “quick and dirty.” I should also point out that I was going through my RI staffing database for further insights the other day and that database includes a student load measure. Teachers at Central Falls appear to be carrying a higher than average student load (compared to other RI high schools, mostly lower need)- an indication of the extent to which they are/may be under-resourced.
If one considers the findings of Bill Duncombe and John Yinger regarding additional costs of achieving comparable outcomes under varied conditions (especially student poverty), clearly Central Falls is under-resourced.
http://ideas.repec.org/p/max/cprwps/60.html
I agree with your main point above (which was essentially my point), that we should try to make appropriate comparisons across schools and that if we were to find that “all else equal” the teachers at CF aren’t cutting it, then it becomes a different story – and the scrutiny on them would be warranted.
I’m just having a little trouble with the current punditry on this topic. If we do buy their logic, then we should just go around firing all of the teachers in every under-resourced, low performing poor urban school in the nation (they’re not all under-resourced) and expect that there will be plenty of “better” teachers waiting in line to replace them – without changing resource levels – or any other factors. Seems to be a problematic approach at best.
The issue of a funding formula does not apply in the case of Central Falls, as their entire budget comes from the state. In the irrational world of RI school finance, they are relative winners. If the current proposed funding formula goes through, they’ll lose money because they’ll be expected to start raising money through local taxes again.
Thanks for this clarification Tom. When I saw the redistribution of state dollars proposed by the current RIDE funding formula, I noticed that Central Falls would receive less money than they do currently. I thought back to my parenthetical musing in this post, but forgot to correct it. Overall, I think my point still stands though…teachers need to be properly supported (and demand such support) before being held accountable for significant gains in student achievement.