The Education Gadfly Weekly

Peter Frumkin, Annie E. Casey Foundation
October 2003

Starting and running a decent charter school is a consuming labor of love. It's common for charter operators, especially the mom and pop variety, to work 80 hours a week and still not get everything done. As they must give top priority to their schools' survival, few have the time to think strategically about how their efforts are ultimately geared towards creating a viable high-performing organization. The absence of long term strategy carries a cost, however, often including a failure to develop strong management skills. This is the central point made in this excellent Annie E. Casey report by Peter Frumkin: quality management requires strategic thinking. Frumkin, a professor at Harvard's JFK School of Government, has basically created a how-to guide to effective strategic management. The report is just 32 pages in four parts: the elements of strategy, stages of school development, school management, and performance measurement. Frumkin's model is designed, in his words, "to give those interested in improving the quality of charter school management a usable model to frame and focus this important work." For a charter school to be effective over the long haul, someone in the leadership team must take the time to think strategically. For such people, this report is mandatory reading. To get a copy, surf to http://www.aecf.org/publications/data/createnewschoolspages.pdf.

Krista Kafer, The Heritage Foundation
October 29, 2003

Prospects are rapidly dimming for Congress to subject the storied Head Start program to a much-needed makeover during the present re-authorization cycle. The House retreated big-time from its initial bold proposal-and from the Bush Administration's still better one. The Senate is now retreating farther. Thanks to the program's iconic status, shrill cheerleaders and adamant interest groups (mostly dominated by child development sorts and current Head Start workers), there seems to be no political payoff from changing the program in fundamental ways despite overwhelming evidence that this is what it needs. Krista Kafer's new Heritage Foundation backgrounder explains all this, doing an especially fine job of showing why reforms are needed and sketching the most important of them. These seven pages are worth your while and can be found at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/BG1701.cfm.

David Conley, Director, Standards for Success, Associate Professor, University of Oregon
2003

It's common knowledge that few college freshmen are truly ready to do university-level work (for example, see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=115#1452). Adding to this literature, Conley shows that high schools may not emphasize the skills and knowledge that colleges prize. This report compares high school reading and math assessments in 20 states to the standards for college readiness recently developed by a coalition of universities. Known as the Knowledge and Skills for University Success (or KSUS; see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=21#135), these standards have been endorsed by 28 members of the Association of American Universities (including Harvard, Stanford, Duke, and many state universities). The report grades each state test from on its alignment to these college standards. Few do well: only 3 of 66 assessments earned an A, the majority earned Bs, while 16 pulled in Cs, meaning they have "limited potential to provide information related to postsecondary readiness." This is perhaps a nice way of saying that states could and should do more to ensure that their high school graduates are prepared for college work. And since what gets tested is what gets taught, assessments are a good place to start. The report acknowledges that local test makers never intended their tests to align with college standards. But that's the problem, and an urgent priority for public education should be to ensure that students are ready for the next phase of life. Unfortunately, this report doesn't provide specific guidance for those wishing to improve tests, nor does it provide a user-friendly explanation of its methodology (though with patience one can decipher it). And in the end, it does little to scold secondary education for its testing shortcomings. Savvy readers will realize, however, that the message here isn't mixed: it's a declaration that our colleges and universities are frustrated with the quality of their incoming students, despite their high-school diplomas. You can find it at http://cepr.uoregon.edu/MixedMessages/index.asp.

Ruth Curran Neild, Elizabeth Useem, Eva F. Travers, and Joy Lesnick, Research for Action
2003

The first portion of this report is heavy with statistics from Philadelphia schools, illustrating the recurrent problems of that district's teacher recruitment, retention, and quality. But its meat is to be found in the second half, where it describes the "blizzard of initiatives" launched by schools CEO Paul Vallas in fall 2002 in his attempt to improve teacher recruitment and retention. Shortly after his arrival, Vallas commenced a Campaign for Human Capital to "expand the pool of prospective teachers and retain experienced teachers." One initiative is an expanded outreach and marketing effort. Another idea is tuition reimbursement for people taking courses required for teaching. The Vallas team is also working to address teacher retention by developing new policies for mentoring and training. Is any of it working? Early results are mixed. Take a look at http://www.researchforaction.org/PSR/PublishedWorks/TQReport03.pdf.

When New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg won control over the city's long beleaguered school system, we were cautiously optimistic that this move might be the long-overdue change in governance that could help turn Gotham's failing schools around. Unfortunately, that optimism faded as Bloomberg, schools chancellor Joel Klein, and deputy chancellor for teaching and learning Diana Lam-a former superintendent who, according to Diane Ravitch has "built a reputation for imposing pedagogical reforms, shaking things up, producing quick test score increases, then leaving with an angry school board baying at her heels"-unveiled the reading and math curricula that were then imposed on all but the most successful NYC schools. As Sol Stern reports in the Autumn edition of the City Journal, the tragic flaw in Bloomberg's education plan was his decision to put progressivist Lam in charge of selecting curricula for the city-a warning that Ravitch sounded back in January [see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=8#368].

Sadly, it seems that Lam did not learn from her previous experience as superintendent of the San Antonio school district, which she left after "80 percent of the elementary teachers voted to drop 'Everyday Math,'" the same constructivist program she has now imposed on NYC educators. The name of her favored reading program, "Month by Month Phonics"-actually a whole language program with little systematic phonics-apparently duped Bloomberg and Klein into believing it was a sound, research-based curriculum. Quite the contrary. In fact, many schools were forced to replace the proven "Success for All" curriculum with Month by Month Phonics, which may yet cost the city up to $40 million a year in federal "Reading First" grants (because Month-by-Month Phonics is not backed by sound research).

Curriculum selection is only one, though perhaps the worst example of the Bloomberg administration's questionable decisions. In fact, though Lam insists that the NYC Department of Education is interested in an ongoing "dialogue" about education reform in the city, the list of "academic sources" that she consulted for advice on reading curricula excludes any education writer "who favors phonics for reading instruction or a curriculum emphasizing knowledge of facts." The list does, however, include a number of obscure progressives, such as the Australian Brian Cambourne, who believes that "what all conscientious teachers ought to strive to inculcate in their students is 'literacy for social equity and social justice.'" Quips Stern, "there's nothing wrong with healing the world, but the progressives have put the cart before the horse. There will be little improvement in our inner cities unless the kids learn to read and acquire other minimum skills."

Will Bloomberg and Klein reverse course? On some other key issues (such as charter schools) their instincts are improving. [See http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=121#1520.] But they have also shown a troubling tendency to grab at the first plausible-sounding solution that comes down the pike, without doing their due diligence. From one of America's savviest businessmen and most prominent anti-trust attorneys, we hoped for more. 

"Tragedy looms for Gotham's school reform," by Sol Stern, City Journal, Autumn 2003

Two examples this week of why injecting competition into the system works. In Minneapolis, word comes that the local district has lost almost 5,500 students in the past five years, mostly to charter schools and suburban schools through open enrollment plans. In response, district leaders say they are looking into making their schools more responsive to the needs and wants of parents. "In determining the district's future, school leaders will try to figure out what's driving parents' choices," reports the Star Tribune. "'What is it that parents, collectively, want? What part of it are we willing to compete for, and what part of it aren't we willing to compete for?'" asked [Superintendent David] Jennings. All good questions that every district should ask without waiting for enrollment loss. Also this week, Florida Governor Jeb Bush came to Washington to explain why vouchers for kids in failing schools are a small but nonetheless crucial part of his education plans. Without the threat of competition, he explained, schools have no incentive to improve, and even the small number of vouchers received by Florida students (less than 1,000 out of 2.5 million students) have "brought about remarkable focus" on the part of affected district schools.

"Public schools lose 5,500 students in Minneapolis," by Allie Shah, Minneapolis Star Tribune, November 4, 2003

"Florida's experience may aid argument for vouchers," by Alan Murray, Wall Street Journal, November 4, 2003 (subscription required)

Arnold Schwarzenegger's previous foray into education policy (a statewide ballot initiative on after-school programs) left something to be desired. [See http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=34#483 for past coverage.] But now he's getting good advice and has chosen former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan as his education secretary. Though the post doesn't have a lot of power, Riordan is a major league education reformer who worked to install a pro-charter, pro-reform school board. (The teachers' union eventually put an end to THAT.) [see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=24#103] We wish them both well.
 
"Schwarzenegger fills education, finance posts," by Peter Nicholas, Dan Morain, and Evan Halper, Los Angeles Times, November 4, 2003

"Teachers unhappy with choice of Riordan," by Nanette Asimov, San Francisco Chronicle, November 4, 2003

Everyone knows that No Child Left Behind has sparked some opposition in the states. But that opposition reached brazen new heights this week, when Utah education officials reported that 95 percent of the state's public school classes are taught by "highly qualified" teachers. Joan Patterson, the state education department functionary responsible for this report, didn't even attempt to hide the fact that Utah officials gamed the system to get the results they wanted. "We submitted the 95 percent because we didn't want to insult the teachers," she told the Associated Press. "How would you like to have been in your profession for 25 years and find you're not highly qualified? That's insulting." In fact, Patterson admits that the real figures show that maybe one-quarter of Utah teachers hold degrees in the appropriate content area. But that doesn't stop her from observing that Congress "didn't fully understand what they were legislating" when it passed NCLB. What will the U.S. Department of Education do in response?

"Utah education officials buck Bush's 'No Child Left Behind' law," Associated Press, November 2, 2003

Yesterday, at a conference sponsored by Common Good at the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, education reformers and researchers (including our own Checker Finn) came together to discuss the educational downsides of excessive litigation and regulation. Teachers and administrators were described as walking on eggshells out of fear of lawsuits. Classroom decisions are being based not on what's best for the kids but on legal concerns. (Playgrounds are stripped of equipment, an upset first grader cannot be hugged, teachers are hesitant to break up fights, etc.) One highlight was the presentation by William Ouchi, professor at the John E. Anderson Graduate School of Management at UCLA. He described the 'Weighted Student Formula' approach to school funding-a method originated by superintendent Mike Strembitsky in the blue-collar town of Edmonton, Canada. In this decentralized approach to budgeting, every child can choose the public school he/she wishes to attend, and the money for that child follows him/her to their school. Using a weighted student formula that takes into account factors such as the student's socio-economic circumstances, any disability, and level of English proficiency, each student is ranked and allotted a specific amount of money based on this ranking. Then, the schools (imagine!) are given budgetary control of the money. The results in Edmonton have been spectacular. In fact, the public schools are so successful they have literally put the private schools out of business. Seattle and Houston have followed in Edmonton's footsteps, and New York City is eyeing it. Ouchi made clear that he's encouraged by these cities but sad that more places are not taking this approach to school improvement.

"Is law undermining public education?" Common Good forum at the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, November 5, 2003

The Common Good

"Making Schools Work: A Revolutionary Plan to Get Your Children the Education They
Need," by William G. Ouchi with Lydia G. Segal, Simon and Schuster, 2003

Columbia University president Lee Bollinger is full of folly. First, he offered the world a troubling vision of the future of journalism schools that would render them more like ed schools. (See http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=20#179.) Now he has seized upon his university's 250th anniversary to discourse in the Wall Street Journal about what he, with nary a bow to Cardinal Newman, calls "the idea of a university" (http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB106617939829836100,00.html). As Columbia is spending a full year celebrating its birthday, the world has eleven months left to argue with him. Allow me.

I quarrel not with Bollinger's grandiose claims about the contributions that his university has made to the well-being of New York City (including sewers, subways, and Lou Gehrig) and the United States (e.g. the Declaration of Independence, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg). I won't even fuss about his grander still promises of the immense good that Columbia will do the entire planet in years to come. What galls me is his hypocritical and one-sided explanation of why "universities have stood the test of time"-and the many things he leaves unsaid.

Bollinger trumpets five abiding strengths of the university. All have some merit, sure, but all are exaggerated. And each comes with its own evil twin.

First, he finds in universities "a distinctive intellectual atmosphere in which one is forced to live in a world of seemingly infinite complexity, while holding on to the natural but quixotic hope that someday it will all be resolved." This appealing quality is also described as "the desire to understand and to explain that understanding to others."

Once upon a time, a university president might speak simply of the "search for truth" as his institution's core mission. The problem is that postmodern intellectuals don't believe in truth. They believe in points of view, preferences, orientations, tastes, contexts, relativism, and the notion that one's worldview can best be explained by gender, race, class, etc. Hence the "quixotic hope" that truth will prevail. And the loss of nerve that truth is what the university is meant to, through its intellectual striving, help to reveal. Instead, we are to settle for "infinite complexity."

Second, Bollinger celebrates "the creation of a democratic personality" via "special communities like universities distinctly dedicated to the open intellect." Would that it were so. But the campus isn't very open any more, not if one's research points toward a politically incorrect conclusion, if one neglects to hail "diversity" as a supreme value, if one believes students might benefit from the works of dead white males, or if one favors a strong national defense.

Third, Bollinger hails academic freedom, the university's distance from government and its "decentralized structure." All in the beholder's eye, I suppose. What I behold is the eclipse of true academic freedom, the fact that universities favor an arm's length relationship only when government might expect something of them, not when they seek money (or other boons) FROM government. As for decentralization, on the modern campus it has come to mean the absence of strong leadership and efficient management. Everyone does his own thing-and somebody else pays for it.

Fourth, Bollinger cites "the fact that universities have become pieces of our identities that we carry with us through life." I suppose that refers to alumni/ae loyalty (and giving). It also calls to mind the sad old grad that one occasionally meets-often with a stiff drink in his hand-for whom those glorious days back at Ivy U were life's highest attainment and greatest glory.

Fifth and finally, he welcomes "the company of the next generation" because it's satisfying to discharge "the noble role of conveying to youth what we have come to know." Indeed, that's what teachers are meant to do. But proper postmodernists flee from "conveying" knowledge to youth, for that mandate implies that they "know" something or that what they know has greater value than what their students think. Perish forbid. Moreover, the campus youth culture has become its own source of dysfunction, with nonstop partying, not enough studying, ever shorter semesters, grade inflation, deification of big-time sports, and the college's impulse to compete for students not by teaching them more (or slashing the price) but turning the place into a quasi-resort that boasts spas, food courts, and high-tech entertainment options.

As Congress considers renewal of the Higher Education Act, instead of being lulled by self-serving sanctimony from the likes of big-name university presidents, it should focus on three problems that might be eased by imaginative public policy.

First, an empty, trendy, one-sided curriculum, taught by a one-sided faculty. (Senator Judd Gregg has begun hearings on this.)

Second, the absence of evidence that college students actually learn anything. Nobody denies that sheepskins bring better jobs and higher incomes, but how much of that is pure credentialism and how much is related to skills and knowledge gained on campus? No one can say, because there's almost no external assessment in higher education. Washington has come to demand evidence of learning and results-based accountability from primary-secondary schools. It should do the same with colleges.

Third, the academy's staggering inefficiency, soaring prices, and complete lack of productivity gains. No, universities aren't widget plants, but there are a thousand ways by which they could curb costs and achieve greater efficiency. In return for further federal aid, Congress should insist that they do so. So should the Wall Street Journal.

Social studies teachers across the country routinely try to teach their students "what things were like" at particular times and places in history. Many such lessons, however, are a waste of time. The Detroit News, for example, recently praised a teacher who built a life-size replica of a World War I trench with his students to help give them " a realistic feeling of being a [Word War I] soldier." Sixteen-year-old Jessica Harbin, faithfully parroting the party line, told the News that once students see the trench, "there will be a great impact in their understanding and knowledge of war." No word on whether rats, mud, influenza, dead bodies, and post-war mental problems are part of the lesson. In a related story, an elementary school teacher in Biggsville, Illinois was suspended for telling a student to take off his clothes during a lesson in which she was trying to illustrate "how the pharaohs ruled." (He stripped to his underwear before the lesson was halted.) In Sacramento, teacher Emilio Moran aroused student and parent ire when he sent home a list of "taxes" to be imposed on students-$1 for a hall pass, 10 cents for homework-to help them understand what it was like to be a colonist under British rule. Moran opined that "part of the problem with teaching history is that it is hard to get kids into the proper mind frame. I could tell them what happened 200 years ago, but my colleagues and I believe that if students remember anything, they will remember the fraudulent classroom rules." No word on whether they remember the actual history lesson. For a longer discussion of social studies' maladies, see Where Did Social Studies Go Wrong? at www.edexcellence.net/socialstudies/socialstudies.html.

"Novi students study WWI," by Janet Sugameli, Detroit News, November 4, 2003

"Social studies lesson goes bad in Biggsville" by Carol Clark, Peoria Journal Star, October 29, 2003 (link no longer available)

"A real history lesson," by Bill Lindelhof, Sacramento Bee, November 5, 2003

David Conley, Director, Standards for Success, Associate Professor, University of Oregon
2003

It's common knowledge that few college freshmen are truly ready to do university-level work (for example, see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=115#1452). Adding to this literature, Conley shows that high schools may not emphasize the skills and knowledge that colleges prize. This report compares high school reading and math assessments in 20 states to the standards for college readiness recently developed by a coalition of universities. Known as the Knowledge and Skills for University Success (or KSUS; see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=21#135), these standards have been endorsed by 28 members of the Association of American Universities (including Harvard, Stanford, Duke, and many state universities). The report grades each state test from on its alignment to these college standards. Few do well: only 3 of 66 assessments earned an A, the majority earned Bs, while 16 pulled in Cs, meaning they have "limited potential to provide information related to postsecondary readiness." This is perhaps a nice way of saying that states could and should do more to ensure that their high school graduates are prepared for college work. And since what gets tested is what gets taught, assessments are a good place to start. The report acknowledges that local test makers never intended their tests to align with college standards. But that's the problem, and an urgent priority for public education should be to ensure that students are ready for the next phase of life. Unfortunately, this report doesn't provide specific guidance for those wishing to improve tests, nor does it provide a user-friendly explanation of its methodology (though with patience one can decipher it). And in the end, it does little to scold secondary education for its testing shortcomings. Savvy readers will realize, however, that the message here isn't mixed: it's a declaration that our colleges and universities are frustrated with the quality of their incoming students, despite their high-school diplomas. You can find it at http://cepr.uoregon.edu/MixedMessages/index.asp.

Krista Kafer, The Heritage Foundation
October 29, 2003

Prospects are rapidly dimming for Congress to subject the storied Head Start program to a much-needed makeover during the present re-authorization cycle. The House retreated big-time from its initial bold proposal-and from the Bush Administration's still better one. The Senate is now retreating farther. Thanks to the program's iconic status, shrill cheerleaders and adamant interest groups (mostly dominated by child development sorts and current Head Start workers), there seems to be no political payoff from changing the program in fundamental ways despite overwhelming evidence that this is what it needs. Krista Kafer's new Heritage Foundation backgrounder explains all this, doing an especially fine job of showing why reforms are needed and sketching the most important of them. These seven pages are worth your while and can be found at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/BG1701.cfm.

Peter Frumkin, Annie E. Casey Foundation
October 2003

Starting and running a decent charter school is a consuming labor of love. It's common for charter operators, especially the mom and pop variety, to work 80 hours a week and still not get everything done. As they must give top priority to their schools' survival, few have the time to think strategically about how their efforts are ultimately geared towards creating a viable high-performing organization. The absence of long term strategy carries a cost, however, often including a failure to develop strong management skills. This is the central point made in this excellent Annie E. Casey report by Peter Frumkin: quality management requires strategic thinking. Frumkin, a professor at Harvard's JFK School of Government, has basically created a how-to guide to effective strategic management. The report is just 32 pages in four parts: the elements of strategy, stages of school development, school management, and performance measurement. Frumkin's model is designed, in his words, "to give those interested in improving the quality of charter school management a usable model to frame and focus this important work." For a charter school to be effective over the long haul, someone in the leadership team must take the time to think strategically. For such people, this report is mandatory reading. To get a copy, surf to http://www.aecf.org/publications/data/createnewschoolspages.pdf.

Ruth Curran Neild, Elizabeth Useem, Eva F. Travers, and Joy Lesnick, Research for Action
2003

The first portion of this report is heavy with statistics from Philadelphia schools, illustrating the recurrent problems of that district's teacher recruitment, retention, and quality. But its meat is to be found in the second half, where it describes the "blizzard of initiatives" launched by schools CEO Paul Vallas in fall 2002 in his attempt to improve teacher recruitment and retention. Shortly after his arrival, Vallas commenced a Campaign for Human Capital to "expand the pool of prospective teachers and retain experienced teachers." One initiative is an expanded outreach and marketing effort. Another idea is tuition reimbursement for people taking courses required for teaching. The Vallas team is also working to address teacher retention by developing new policies for mentoring and training. Is any of it working? Early results are mixed. Take a look at http://www.researchforaction.org/PSR/PublishedWorks/TQReport03.pdf.