Linda Darling-Hammond, a Stanford University professor who testified earlier for the plaintiffs, returned to the stand Monday to rebut defense testimony by Eric Hanushek of the Hoover Institution, which is affiliated with Stanford.
Earlier in the day Monday, four witnesses for the state mostly actually said what plaintiffs’ lawyers wanted to hear about the condition of Colorado’s school finance system.
Darling-Hammond, one of the key plaintiffs’ expert witness in the case, testified at length on Aug. 19 about teaching best practices and implementation of standards-based reforms (see story). Her testimony was polished but longer on description than it was on statistics. Darling-Hammond is a nationally known scholar who’s raised issues about inappropriate use of student test scores to evaluate teachers.
The defense’s star expert witness, Hanushek, testified Aug. 25 and gave a presentation heavy on charts and statistics to illustrate his primary thesis that increased education spending doesn’t improve student achievement, nationally or in Colorado (see story).
Darling-Hammond returned to court Monday via a Skype video link that was projected on a large screen in a corner of Denver District Judge Sheila Rappaport’s courtroom.
Refuting one of Hanushek’s assertions about improving student achievement by firing the least effective teachers, Darling-Hammond said states can’t “fire their way to Finland,” referring to that oft-cited example of educational excellence.
This time she was armed with more numbers. Questioned by David Hinojosa, lawyer for one group of plaintiffs in the case, she took an hour to critique in detail Hanushek’s assertions about spending and achievement in Colorado and elsewhere.
Regarding the Colorado data, Darling-Hammond said that while Hanushek’s analysis showed little impact of spending levels on student growth, the more meaningful analysis involves spending and student achievement (student scores on tests). “We found a very strong relationship between achievement and spending.”
She also said that Hanushek’s claims about stagnant U.S. student performance on National Assessment of Educational Progress tests didn’t tell the whole story because he reviewed only high school performance over several decades, which she said has stayed flat because of changing student demographics. (Fewer at-risk or low-achieving students were in earlier groups of test-takers.) Reviews of scores in younger grades show improvement, she said.
A central Hanushek argument is that while U.S. education spending has risen significantly over the last few decades, test scores have not.
“There have been gains in achievement over the last 40 years,” she said.
Darling-Hammond also presented data to show that New Jersey students’ achievement has risen since court-ordered finance increases in the late 1990s. Hanushek argues that financial adequacy lawsuits like the long-running New Jersey case and like Lobato don’t improve student achievement.
And, Darling-Hammond dismissed as theoretical a complicated Hanushek projection about higher lifetime earnings for students who are taught by the most effective teachers. He had suggested student outcomes could be improved by firing the least effective teachers.
“There’s no evidence that firing the bottom group of teachers … would in any way move student achievement upward.” She said high-performing nations like Finland “don’t fire teachers” because they train them well.
“Can Colorado fire its way to Finland?” asked Hinojosa.
“You cannot fire your way to Finland,” Darling-Hammond said, smiling on the big screen.
Updated 10:15 a.m., Aug. 30 – Darling-Hammond was cross-examined over a speakerphone for about half an hour Tuesday morning
Senior Assistant Attorney General Carey Markel questioned Darling-Hammond about using growth as opposed to achievement data when assessing the impact of spending, about per pupil spending data in specific New Jersey districts and about dips in some New Jersey test scores in individual years.
Darling-Hammond maintained her assertion that it’s more appropriate to use achievement data rather than growth data when examining the impact of funding, She also maintained that increased court-ordered spending in New Jersey has improved student achievement and that New Jersey overall has outpaced Colorado in achievement, despite dips in test scores in individual years.
She repeatedly tried to reference broader contexts when answering Markel’s questions, despite Markel’s attempts to elicit yes or no answers.
Text of original story continues below.
State’s witnesses agree with plaintiffs’ lawyers
Earlier in the day, four defense witnesses testified, including two State Board of Education members, a former top Department of Education official and a current CDE official.
Lawyers for the state guided the witnesses through testimony designed to buttress some of the state’s arguments about the lack of a link between school funding and student achievement, about state efforts to target funding to areas of educational need and about the ability of districts to raise their own revenues.
But on cross-examination, plaintiffs’ lawyers got plenty of admissions from witnesses about points the plaintiffs wanted to make – primarily the inadequacy of K-12 funding in Colorado.
The four were state board members Elaine Gantz Berman, D-1st District, and Marcia Neal, R-3rd District, former Assistant Commissioner Vody Herrmann and CDE construction program director Ted Hughes.
Berman and Herrmann were the main witnesses, as Neal’s testimony was relatively brief and Hughes’ testimony focused on school facilities needs and the state construction program.
Asked if funding for schools was insufficient, Berman said, “‘I agree with that.”
Herrmann, who’s being paid $58 an hour to advise the attorney general’s team, was asked if she believed funding is adequate and said, “I do not.” She added, “I think the structure of the school finance act is pretty good” if adequately funded.
Plaintiffs’ lawyers peppered Berman and Herrmann with dozens of “wouldn’t you agree” questions, to which the two answered “yes” or “correct.”
Neal, a retired social studies teacher and former Mesa County school board member, said, “I’m just not supportive of the idea that money improves education.” She said state reform initiatives will “cost money, but perhaps not extra money.”
Highlights of the day
QUOTE: On the issue of local control, Berman said, “If it were up to me, the State Board of Education would determine what needs to be done in public education and local school districts would figure out how to get it done. … In some ways, local control prevents all school districts from setting the bar high and having student outcomes that are as high as they can be.”
DOCUMENTS: Berman and Neal got lots of questions about the state board’s strategic plan (PowerPoint) and legislative priorities, both of which talk about protecting school funding.
For background on the views of Darling-Hammond and Haneshek, see her pretrial statement and his.
COLOR: Darling-Hammond’s video presentation had its rocky moments. The video dropped a couple of times although the audio was fine. A technician sat in the witness box fiddling with settings on a MacBook. At one point, she accidentally jostled her webcam, giving the courtroom audience a brief, dizzying view of her office ceiling.
Her testimony ended at 4:30 p.m., just when Rappaport needed to leave to teach a class. There was some confusion over how to work in Darling-Hammond’s cross-examination, especially after she announced, “I’m actually leaving tomorrow for Iceland.”
After clearing up confusion about the time difference between Colorado and California, the lawyers and judge finally agreed to have her cross-examined first thing Tuesday morning – over a speakerphone – before she heads for the North Atlantic.
UPCOMING: The defense gets its shot at Darling-Hammond and then is expected to present additional witnesses from CDE later in the day.