The Education Gadfly Weekly

Jay Greene
Rowman & Littlefield
2005

Jay Greene's new book works on a simple premise: Education is prone to myths - here are the facts. He goes about debunking 18 common education inaccuracies, and he relies on actual numbers to do it. Are schools dangerously under funded, are teachers sorely underpaid, are over-crowded classrooms sinking prospects for our nation's students? Well, according to the data, no. Not surprisingly, the book's causing some consternation in the usual places. The Washington Post dubs Education Myths a "data-driven polemic." "Still," the reviewer bafflingly writes, "all the numbers in the world won't end debate over what's true." Maybe not, but they do create a common ground for discussion. On the left coast, the usually sane Richard Lee Colvin, writing in his old haunt, the Los Angeles Times, calls Greene's conclusions, which Colvin frequently misconstrues, "absurd." Greene, for example, notes in a couple of sentences that smaller school districts generally perform better than larger ones. Colvin turns Greene's observation into a demand when he writes, "Breaking up Los Angeles into districts the size of Manhattan Beach or Beverly Hills isn't going to change the quality of teaching or make poor and immigrant kids from single-parent or no-parent families without healthcare suddenly perform like the children of well-paid executives." No, it wouldn't, and surely Jay Greene would be the first to agree. What most upsets such critics, and leads them into hyperbolic accusations and poor arguments, is Education Myths' emphasis on evidence. In the ongoing debates about education reform, it is true that reasonable people will disagree on policies. But if progress is to be made, it's essential that everyone come to the table with shared facts. Education Myths is a good step in that direction. Which may be why innumerable sticks-in-the-mud are trying to discredit it. You can order a copy here.

"Stories from the front lines of American schools reveal the world beneath policy debates," by Eric Hoover, Washington Post, September 4, 2005 (article purchase required)

"A free-market primer for the classroom," by Richard Lee Colvin, Los Angeles Times, September 18, 2005

As a Marylander who hasn't done much for his state, I was honored to serve on this commission, which was appointed by Governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. and chaired by Lt. Governor Michael S. Steele. Though a large, Noah's Ark-ish assemblage, its talented members worked hard and came forth with 30 recommendations for overhauling K-12 education in a state that has been wary of major reforms but that needs them. The policy advice ranges from plain vanilla (more parent involvement, seamless early childhood services), through pistachio (a statewide school-ratings system, a close review of all teacher preparation programs), to rocky road (differential pay for teachers, a much stronger charter school law). Then there are recommendations (e.g. a fully portable pension system) that would be welcomed and applauded anywhere but public education, whose astoundingly conservative leaders immediately balked. So far, in fact, reactions (at least those reported by the papers) have been absolutely predictable, with every interest group and politician saying exactly what you would expect. I second the governor's recommendation to them: How about reading the report first. It runs 50 pages but has a good executive summary of the key suggestions.

"Lt. Governor Releases Guidelines for Md. Schools," by Daniel de Vise, Washington Post, September 15, 2005

"Teachers union critical of report by Steele panel," by Sara Neufeld, Baltimore Sun, September 17, 2005

Center for Education Reform
2005

This short paper by CER, released the week after Fordham's Charter School Funding: Inequity's Next Frontier, provides insight into the reasons charters are shortchanged when school funds are doled out. They frequently lack access to facilities funds and cannot participate in local bond measures. Moreover, school districts often have the power to withhold funds from charters or exclude them from categorical programs. District schools benefit from "hold harmless" clauses that allow them to retain funds for services ostensibly provided to charters, such as transportation, and minimize the impact on districts of losing funds to charters. Perhaps the most pressing problem is one that CER describes as "funding flow," such that "even when the law specifies a percentage of funds should go to the charter, this does not necessarily occur," because the state itself does not control the money - local funds are kept by districts and not shared with charters. CER lays out a variety of solutions, which boil down to improving state legislation and management so that charters get their fair share. We heartily concur. You can find it online here.

Dr. Kathy Madigan is stepping down as president of the American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence (ABCTE) effective September 30, 2005. During her four-year tenure, Madigan's leadership was instrumental in developing ABCTE's Passport to Teaching program, which has become the "premier national alternative route to the teaching profession." Gadfly wishes Dr. Madigan the best of luck in her future endeavors and thanks her for showing such tireless dedication over the past four years. 

Last week the Toledo Blade reported that Toledo Public Schools Superintendent Eugene Sanders interviewed for the top executive position at New Schools of Detroit, a nonprofit created in August by the Skillman Foundation of Michigan to oversee new charter schools in the area. Ordinarily, Gadfly might applaud an experienced education leader defecting to charter schools, but Sanders is notorious for his crusade against charters in Toledo, and indeed across the state. The Blade reports one on-the-record example of Sanders's view of charters: "I think the regretful element of the charter school movement in Ohio is reflective of individuals who don't have the best interest of children in their scopes.... They are attempting to run private types of business with public funds." If the Skillman Foundation considers Sanders a leading candidate, it's high time the NEA considers Gadfly's impressive resume for Reg Weaver's job. (Our platform: better food for union staffers!)

"Sanders interviews for charter school job," by Ignazio Messina, Toledo Blade, September 15, 2005

An article in the September 12^th edition of the Indianapolis Star (not available online) reported that the Hoosier State's charter schools are starting to sprout in the leafy suburbs. Similar news came out of Minnesota last summer. Is this a trend? And is it good for the charter school movement?

Suburban parents' reasons for choosing charters are varied. Some are looking for smaller education settings. In upscale Carmel, Indiana, for example, a number of students and parents, concerned that the local Goliath of a high school (the 4,000-plus-student Carmel High) isn't a good fit for them, are opting for the David-esque Options Charter High School (student population around 130, with a waiting list of more than 60). Five other suburban charter schools in Indiana are attracting students for similar reasons.

Marty Dezelan, who heads Ball State University's charter school office, is quick to point out that this expansion of charters into the suburbs is a "trickle, not a flood." Nevertheless, more suburban-based schools are in the works to meet the rising demand for slots.

Other parents want charters that offer a back-to-basics curriculum, which frequently isn't found in their children's local schools. National Heritage Academies, for example, has some 50 schools in five states - many in the suburbs - catering to parents and students who appreciate the back-to-basics philosophy. One of these schools, Canton Academy in Canton, Michigan, has a student population of around 600, and a waiting list nearly as long. And its students are, for the most part, far from poor. Less than 6 percent of that city's population lives below the poverty line.

Some suburban Minnesota parents are turning on to charters because these schools can specialize. In addition to Core Curriculum schools, charter schools are "offering arts education,... foreign language immersion, and other specialties."

This interest in charters by suburban parents should surprise no one. The notion that suburban schools are bastions of intellectual power has been proven wrong time and again, most powerfully in Class Warfare: Besieged Schools, Bewildered Parents, Betrayed Kids and the Attack on Excellence by J. Martin Rochester. And some suburban parents have long known this. In the past, they've exercised their right of choice by educating their children at home or placing them in one of the many Catholic or Protestant schools mushrooming in bedroom communities across the country.

But is expanding into the suburbs good for the charter school movement? There is some reason to be concerned. Most notably, suburban charters increase the risk that charter schools will be labeled as elitist institutions. This charge has hampered the charter movement as a whole in Colorado, where charters have a strong suburban (and rural) presence, a relatively (for charters, anyway) lower percentage of poor/minority pupils - and in response have something of a reputation for functioning as publicly supported "private" schools for white, middle-class students.

But there's much to be gained politically as well as educationally by soccer moms being able to pull their minivans up to the doors of their favorite charter school. Most notably, suburban charters would greatly expand the base of support for the charter movement, and perhaps lead policymakers to remove the onerous caps that now hamper charter growth in so many states. (Those caps include barriers even to creating suburban charters. In Ohio, for example, caps restrict start-ups to districts in serious academic difficulty.) On the other hand, suburban legislators who have, to date, been supportive of charter schools "for other kids" might balk once the school districts they represent start to feel the pinch of competition.

Still, the war for school choice marches forward, and suburban charters may well prove to be the battalion that turns the tide. That would be good for moms and dads in every community.

Only a thoroughgoing grinch, one might suppose, would find fault with the Bush administration's proposal to help all Katrina kids find a safe place to go to school this year. The administration will offer up to $7,500 per displaced student to cover education costs. Naturally and properly, some of these funds will find their way to private schools, as have the children displaced by the hurricane. About a quarter of all students in the areas hit by the hurricane previously attended private (mostly Catholic) schools - a cultural artifact of the region's strong French-Catholic roots and, it must be said, also a consequence of the lackluster public schools that surrounded many of them. When families fled to Baton Rouge or Lafayette or Houston, many naturally wanted to put their children in educational environments that felt familiar. Besides, local public schools are busting at the seams, in no small part because of the influx of Katrina survivors. Allowing beleaguered parents to choose the best educational environment for their children is a good example of what David Brooks calls "Bushian Conservatism": energetic but not domineering government. So what's the problem? "This is not the time for a partisan political debate on vouchers," said Senator Ted Kennedy in a statement. He's right. There should be no debate - and he should show the way by shutting his yap. This is a time to focus on the needs of kids, not the parochial interests of the education system's special interests (for especially appalling statements, see here, here, and here). A simple rule: let's work to help all families return to a sense of normalcy, no matter what their educational preference or religion. And let's ensure all those kids a school year that ends better than it started.

"Public Bailout, Private Agenda?" by David Van Biema, Time, September 26, 2005

"A Bushian Laboratory," by David Brooks, The New York Times, September 18, 2005

"School vouchers intended as temporary aid," by Greg Toppo, USA Today, September 21, 2005 

Sandra Feldman was a brilliant and dedicated teacher unionist. From her earliest days in the civil rights movement, she exhibited intelligence, courage, and leadership. She was one of Albert Shanker's closest associates, and she shared his passion for democracy and civil rights.

As president of the United Federation of Teachers in New York City, she was an outspoken advocate for better education and a fearless defender of teachers' rights. Having lived through the contentious teachers' strikes of the late 1960s, she was wary of any effort to remove due process protections from her membership. As president of the American Federation of Teachers, Sandy Feldman was a powerful supporter of efforts to raise educational standards. She was a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, of course, but she defended No Child Left Behind, realizing its potential to direct more attention and resources to the neediest students.

Like her mentor Al Shanker, Sandy Feldman was actively involved in efforts to promote democracy in Eastern Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia, and wherever it was denied. She cared about children and teachers. Her clear, strong, and sensible voice will be missed.

She lived her final days as she lived her life: with courage, humor, and strength in the face of adversity.

Los Angeles's poor students aren't getting a lot of love. An Education Trust - West report shows that the Los Angeles Unified School District's most experienced teachers tend to work in higher-paying, less-troubled schools in the city's more affluent areas. No surprise there. According to the report, LAUSD's "seniority bumping rights" policy is partly to blame. It allows more-senior teachers first dibs on open positions in less stressful environs. Predictably, teachers opt for Bel Air over South Central. New York City's schools have much the same problem, and Chancellor Joel Klein has some ideas on how to change that. Among his thoughts: Give higher salaries to qualified teachers who opt to work in underperforming schools, and performance bonuses to teachers in schools with "exceptional growth" in test scores. Needless to say, if New York's United Federation of Teachers could have its way, it would run Klein and his pay proposals right out of town - maybe all the way to L.A.

 "A-list teachers avoid poor kids," by Naush Boghossian, Los Angeles Daily News, September 15, 2005

"Schools Chief Urges Teacher Pay Changes," by David M. Herszenhorn [check spelling], New York Times, September 21, 2005.

"Even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while," quoth the late Russell Long (D-LA), longtime chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. And so it is with the customarily education-blind New York Times editorial page, which unearthed a back-to-school acorn of wisdom on September 6.

Perhaps inspired by the flat-world musings of Times columnist Thomas Friedman, the editors delivered themselves of a perceptive analysis, noting that NCLB has done well at forcing states, districts, and educators "to focus at last on educational inequality, the nation's most corrosive social problem." But, they continued, "it has been less successful at getting educators and politicians to see the education problem in a global context, and to understand that this country is rapidly losing ground to the nations we compete with for high-skilled jobs that require a strong basis in math and science.... The United States can still prosper in a world where its labor costs are higher than the competition's, but it cannot do that if the cheaper workers abroad are also better educated." (emphasis added)

That sentence should be written on the blackboard a thousand times by everyone balking at the demands of NCLB and other standards-based reform strategies. For such reforms seek to secure America's future in two ways. One is by narrowing our domestic achievement gaps. The other is by boosting our overall level of academic prowess, at least up to the level that states have defined as "proficiency." Those who decry NCLB have their eyes on today, or maybe yesterday, not on tomorrow.

Skeptics say the dual goals are in conflict. Closing the achievement gap, they argue, means dumbing down standards and reining in high achievers, whereas a regimen that propels young Americans to world-class norms in demanding fields such as math and science would leave some of their classmates behind.

That paradox is true in part. We cannot be completely equal and truly excellent at the same time. But we could be more of both than we are today. Imagine what a different country this would be if 70 percent of all our kids were "proficient" in key subjects rather than the 30-odd percent who are today. (I'm using the NAEP gauge of proficiency, not the squishier versions adopted by most states.) Picture a society in which 90 percent of all young people graduate from high school on time (instead of today's 70 percent) with diplomas that signify readiness for college and modern jobs.

To get anywhere near those outcomes, however, we must make major changes in how we organize, pay for, and deliver K-12 education. This is in addition to the accountability mechanisms we impose upon the system and its various components - including the people who work in it.

If we don't change our ways, we won't get different results. (Recall the old definition of insanity.) And that's what NCLB, at bottom, is about: pressing states, districts, schools, and educators (not to mention kids) to change their ways, alter their behaviors, do things differently than they're accustomed to. It's the strongest behaviorist statute I can remember in the field of education; Uncle Sam at his pushiest.

This explains why others are pushing back. People don't like to change their behaviors and institutions resist altering their established practices.         

Through such a lens one should view the machinations of the NEA, of Connecticut's attorney general and state superintendent, of Utah's legislature, and sundry other instances of NCLB backlash. Prodded by Washington to do things differently, they're balking. They don't want to change. But that's hard to admit. So they're finding a million other rationales ("local control," "unfunded mandate," "unconstitutional") to justify their resistance. They're demanding waivers, exemptions, and "flexibility" so they don't have to change, at least not much. And to a lamentable degree the U.S. Department of Education is yielding of late, just as the Clinton Department of Education did when states balked at implementing both "Goals 2000" and the 1994 amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

No, NCLB isn't perfect. I have as long a list as anyone of its malfunctions, unintended consequences, and needed amendments. And yes, a handful of states (not including Utah or Connecticut, by the way) had pretty decent systems of pre-NCLB standards-based reform that were showing gains; it's hard to fault them for not wanting to retool just because Uncle Sam has a slightly different approach.

Still, the country's K-12 education arrangements, taken as a whole, need to change in a big way. Otherwise, we'll neither close our domestic gaps nor catch our international rivals. Change means altering behavior, which usually means being compelled, dragooned, bribed, or outsmarted into doing things differently. Despite not wanting to.

Boosters of NCLB in particular and standards-based reform in general would be wise to rest their case on two grounds, as the blind-hog Times did: the moral and political imperative of narrowing the achievement gap at home and the economic and geopolitical need for a population that can out-compete the countries now striving to whip us. So far, the former argument is practically all one hears. The White House should join the Times editors, as odd a coupling as that may seem, in making the second argument, too. Further, the White House should quit letting people off the hook just because they don't want to change. Instead, the president should point out that not altering behavior means not changing our results, and that, my fellow Americans, will not get us where we need to be.

"Back to School, Thinking Globally," New York Times, September 6, 2005 (paid subscription required)

"Bush faces growing revolt over education policy," Reuters, September 5, 2005

"Why Is State Really Bucking 'No Child' Law?" by Lewis M. Andrews, Hartford Courant, September 6, 2005 (paid subscription required)

As a Marylander who hasn't done much for his state, I was honored to serve on this commission, which was appointed by Governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. and chaired by Lt. Governor Michael S. Steele. Though a large, Noah's Ark-ish assemblage, its talented members worked hard and came forth with 30 recommendations for overhauling K-12 education in a state that has been wary of major reforms but that needs them. The policy advice ranges from plain vanilla (more parent involvement, seamless early childhood services), through pistachio (a statewide school-ratings system, a close review of all teacher preparation programs), to rocky road (differential pay for teachers, a much stronger charter school law). Then there are recommendations (e.g. a fully portable pension system) that would be welcomed and applauded anywhere but public education, whose astoundingly conservative leaders immediately balked. So far, in fact, reactions (at least those reported by the papers) have been absolutely predictable, with every interest group and politician saying exactly what you would expect. I second the governor's recommendation to them: How about reading the report first. It runs 50 pages but has a good executive summary of the key suggestions.

"Lt. Governor Releases Guidelines for Md. Schools," by Daniel de Vise, Washington Post, September 15, 2005

"Teachers union critical of report by Steele panel," by Sara Neufeld, Baltimore Sun, September 17, 2005

Center for Education Reform
2005

This short paper by CER, released the week after Fordham's Charter School Funding: Inequity's Next Frontier, provides insight into the reasons charters are shortchanged when school funds are doled out. They frequently lack access to facilities funds and cannot participate in local bond measures. Moreover, school districts often have the power to withhold funds from charters or exclude them from categorical programs. District schools benefit from "hold harmless" clauses that allow them to retain funds for services ostensibly provided to charters, such as transportation, and minimize the impact on districts of losing funds to charters. Perhaps the most pressing problem is one that CER describes as "funding flow," such that "even when the law specifies a percentage of funds should go to the charter, this does not necessarily occur," because the state itself does not control the money - local funds are kept by districts and not shared with charters. CER lays out a variety of solutions, which boil down to improving state legislation and management so that charters get their fair share. We heartily concur. You can find it online here.

Jay Greene
Rowman & Littlefield
2005

Jay Greene's new book works on a simple premise: Education is prone to myths - here are the facts. He goes about debunking 18 common education inaccuracies, and he relies on actual numbers to do it. Are schools dangerously under funded, are teachers sorely underpaid, are over-crowded classrooms sinking prospects for our nation's students? Well, according to the data, no. Not surprisingly, the book's causing some consternation in the usual places. The Washington Post dubs Education Myths a "data-driven polemic." "Still," the reviewer bafflingly writes, "all the numbers in the world won't end debate over what's true." Maybe not, but they do create a common ground for discussion. On the left coast, the usually sane Richard Lee Colvin, writing in his old haunt, the Los Angeles Times, calls Greene's conclusions, which Colvin frequently misconstrues, "absurd." Greene, for example, notes in a couple of sentences that smaller school districts generally perform better than larger ones. Colvin turns Greene's observation into a demand when he writes, "Breaking up Los Angeles into districts the size of Manhattan Beach or Beverly Hills isn't going to change the quality of teaching or make poor and immigrant kids from single-parent or no-parent families without healthcare suddenly perform like the children of well-paid executives." No, it wouldn't, and surely Jay Greene would be the first to agree. What most upsets such critics, and leads them into hyperbolic accusations and poor arguments, is Education Myths' emphasis on evidence. In the ongoing debates about education reform, it is true that reasonable people will disagree on policies. But if progress is to be made, it's essential that everyone come to the table with shared facts. Education Myths is a good step in that direction. Which may be why innumerable sticks-in-the-mud are trying to discredit it. You can order a copy here.

"Stories from the front lines of American schools reveal the world beneath policy debates," by Eric Hoover, Washington Post, September 4, 2005 (article purchase required)

"A free-market primer for the classroom," by Richard Lee Colvin, Los Angeles Times, September 18, 2005