The Education Gadfly Weekly

Achieve, Inc.
February 2005

A bunch of governors, a smattering of CEOs, and hordes of educators and hangers-on gathered this past weekend at a downtown Washington hotel to meditate on the plight of the American high school and what to do to fix (or replace) it. Bill Gates opened the "summit" with a withering indictment of today's high schools and, amid considerable hoopla and media attention, attendees struggled to propound alternative approaches. (The world's most successful capitalist did not, however, display inordinate affection for market-style solutions to education problems.) As with all "summits," the primary product had been scripted in advance, even released in advance, but it's a thoughtful piece of work that groups nine worthy "action items" under three headings: "restore value to the high school diploma," "redesign high schools," and "give high school students the excellent teachers and principals they need." Gates and several other foundations put some money on the table and a number of governors pledged their states to join the American Diploma Project, which seeks to harmonize high school exit standards with the entry expectations of colleges and employers. (See here and here.)

Though Secretary Spellings and several Congressmen addressed the closing session, this summit was not about federal policy. It was about what states should do to rekindle American secondary education, now being bested by many other countries. Two things struck me. First, how far every state has to go, against fierce interest group resistance and institutional inertia, to affect the changes set forth in the summit communiqu??; and, second, how closely this action agenda resembles an extension of NCLB to include high schools even as President Bush's plan to do precisely that is winning scant support on Capitol Hill. You can find the summiteers' action plan here.

"Mr. Gates goes to Washington," New York Times, March 1, 2005

"Microsoft's Gates urges Governors to restructure U.S. high schools," by Dan Balz, Washington Post, February 27, 2005

"Educational complacency will make U.S. feel the pain," Craig R. Barrett, USA Today, February 24, 2005 

"Governors seek rise in high school standards," by Greg Winter, New York Times, February 23, 2005

Joy Hakim, Smithsonian Books
January 2005

This is an extraordinary book. Part of a planned series of six volumes on the history of science by distinguished textbook author Joy Hakim, Aristotle Leads the Way traces the development of scientific knowledge from the ancient world through the early Renaissance. Hakim is an engaging writer, unafraid of taking a stand and unembarrassed by the book's location of science in the humanities and its forthright focus on Western culture's outsized contributions to scientific inquiry. (Though she does not stint on non-Western history, either.) I found amazing the connections Hakim made between Western philosophy and religion and their creation of the rational, inquisitive mindset that makes modern science possible - connections you will rarely find in most textbooks. For example, she rightfully lingers on the early Renaissance philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas, who revitalized the Aristotelian approach of classification and careful observation that is the modus operandi of modern science. How many American middle schoolers even know the name Aquinas, much less can explain his significance? A few caveats: the book suffers slightly from what Diane Ravitch has called the "If it's Tuesday, this must be the Hittites" phenomenon, which is perhaps unavoidable in a history that spans millennia. And Hakim is a bit broad in some of her characterizations of religion, especially the other-worldly Christianity that developed in the Medieval era, which was not so anti-intellectual as she sometimes suggests. But these are quibbles that arise from something incredibly refreshing in a textbook: a crisp and articulate point of view. Get it here, read it for yourself, and pass it on to teachers and students. You and they will be better educated for it. I sure was.

Saul Geiser and Veronica Santelices, Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California at Berkeley
2004

This report questions the large role that AP classes play in admissions to elite colleges and universities and finds that "the number of AP and honors courses taken in high school bears little or no relationship to students' later performance in college." Colleges will often weigh students' AP courses through a point system or "holistically," regardless of whether they took the corresponding exam. The authors conclude that, while AP test scores correlate with college success, simply passing an AP course does not. Because of the admissions advantage of taking AP classes, many high schools feel pressured to "offer more advanced courses than they are able to support adequately with trained teachers and other resources." This means that students can receive good grades in an AP-labeled class yet not achieve at AP standards. Also, the system of adding points for AP classes (an A in an AP class typically yields 5 points instead of 4, a B confers 4 instead of 3, and so on) can inflate students' GPA - the mean GPA of freshmen admitted to Berkeley is an astonishing 4.31. Many students in poor districts can't realistically achieve this GPA because of the lack of AP courses. The report, however, studies Cal-Berkeley students; would there be a different outcome for them at a less selective school? Students at less prestigious schools who took an AP course in high school might be better off than the larger number of students who didn't. But as the authors stress, this study is focused on "the use of AP and other honors-level coursework as a criterion for admission at elite colleges and universities." And for that, it provides convincing evidence that a reassessment is in order. You can read the report here.

Cheri Pierson Yecke, Center of the American Experiment
February 2005

Former Minnesota education commissioner Cheri Pierson Yecke, newly announced as a candidate for Minnesota's Sixth Congressional District, compares that state's school districts according to their efficiency in producing high school graduates. She first divides a given district's graduation rate by the average graduation rate of its "peer group" (all districts sorted into quartiles according to the poverty level of their students); then she divides the district's per-pupil expenditures by the average level of its peer group. Next, she divides the former quotient by the latter and multiplies by 100 to produce, for that (and every) district, an "efficiency and effectiveness index," which she examines by quartiles. Then she engages in some interesting analyses of districts that are demographically similar yet very different in their efficiency/effectiveness. Perhaps of greatest national significance is the contrast between the Twin Cities: "Although similar in size and demographics," Yecke observes, "St. Paul manages to graduate 72 percent of its students, compared to 53 percent for Minneapolis - and spends $1,000 less per student doing so." A nice bit of analysis that shows, once again, that neither demographics nor expenditures are destiny when it comes to school performance. You can find it here.

This is no April Fools item. Teachers in America's leftist heartland, Berkeley, California, have announced that they will not assign their students written homework until they receive a pay raise. The local teachers' union initiated the strike and is requiring teachers not to "volunteer" outside of their contracted hours. Already, a Black History Month event has been cancelled and stacks of papers are piling up. Meanwhile, parents have crossed the picket line—those scabs!—to staff a middle-school science fair. As the NEA says, "We teach the children." Except, of course, when we don't.

"Teachers refuse to give homework," Associated Press, March 1, 2005

Don't cancel your subscription to the New York Times just yet. Education reformers (and people of contrarian spirit everywhere) should be pleased with the announcement that reporter and columnist John Tierney is taking over William Safire's patch of the most-watched journalistic real estate in the world: the Times op-ed page. Tierney has for years been sympathetic to vouchers, merit pay, and various other school reforms. (See here and here for some examples of his against-the-grain work.) He's a fine writer and tenacious reporter. We hope he'll be a little more open to charter schools than certain members of the Times' reporting staff, at the least.

"Contrarian voice joins N.Y. Times op-ed page," by Howard Kurtz, Washington Post, March 2, 2005

"N.Y. Times picks John Tierney for op-ed page," by Joe Strupp, Editor & Publisher, March 1, 2005

The latest California Field Poll shows that, while many of Governor Schwarzenegger's reform proposals - the Govern-ator has dubbed this the "Year of Reform" in the Golden State - garner only lukewarm support, his idea of teacher merit pay (see here) is a genuine hit. A solid 60 percent of registered voters are in favor, with Democrats, Republicans, and nonpartisans all providing praise. As pollster Mark DiCamillo notes, "The concept is intuitively appealing to voters. Merit pay is really the way they believe most things should work in the world, and they would like it for teachers as well." Schwarzenegger is still trying to work out a deal with legislators to approve the proposal. If it moves forward at all - the Sacramento Bee reports that Schwarzenegger might be backing off a bit - it will likely be as part of a special referendum later this year. You can expect the teachers' union to come out swinging, and it always has plenty of money with which to swing. As the Press-Telegram concludes, "It's going to be an ugly year."

"Governor revs up ballot drives," by Andy Furillo, Sacramento Bee, March 2, 2005

"Let the duels begin," Long Beach Press-Telegram, March 1, 2005

"Field Poll: Most initiatives urged by governor have slim leads," by Gary Delsohn, Sacramento Bee, February 24, 2005

With legislatures across the country in full swing, school-choice proposals - both vouchers and tuition tax credits - are being debated all over. Parents rallied on the State House steps in South Carolina in support of Governor Mark Sanford's tax credit for home school and private school students. As Sanford said, "This is simply about recognizing that competition has made every product . . . better." Florida Governor Jeb Bush is pushing to expand vouchers to students who score poorly on the reading FCAT three years in a row. "I think it's . . . as American as apple pie to give people a choice as to what's provided them," he remarked. We've reported previously on Ohio Governor Bob Taft's plan to expand Cleveland's voucher program to the rest of the state. The Utah House voted down a statewide tuition tax credit for private schooling, but the state House and Senate did pass a voucher program for special needs students similar to Florida's McKay Scholarship. Indiana's voucher bill stalled before a floor vote but, as the Indianapolis Star reports, "The glitch was procedural, and the fight on school vouchers is far from over." The bill's sponsor plans to reintroduce it as soon as possible. Finally, a voucher bill is awaiting floor action in the Arizona House. Arizona Republic columnist Robert Robb makes the case, "The most pressing educational need in the nation is to enable such kids who want to learn, or who have parents who want them to learn, to find the most productive environments in which to learn. And often, that is in private schools rather than government schools." Have we reached a "tipping point" on school choice this year? Probably not. But the level of legislative activity is unparalleled.

"Choosing choice," by David Salisbury, National Review Online, March 2, 2005

"School voucher bill stalls in House," by Staci Hupp, Indianapolis Star, February 26, 2005

"Value of school vouchers is now clear," by Robert Robb, Arizona Republic, February 25, 2005

"Bush pushes voucher bill to aid struggling readers," by Jackie Hallifax, Associated Press, February 24, 2005

"Parents rally for tax-credit bill," by Jennifer Talhelm, The State, February 16, 2005

Like going steady in elementary school, everybody's talking about it, but nobody's actually doing it. We mean, of course, mounting a major challenge to NCLB. The National Conference of State Legislatures caused a ruckus last week (see here) with its call for major changes to the law, which the group claims is an unconstitutional attack on state and local control of education. (Funny, do you remember NCSL being a hotbed of federalist conviction before now?) Utah seemed poised to withdraw from NCLB, but Republican Governor Jon Huntsman announced (after a face-to-face meeting with Education Secretary Margaret Spellings and the president) that final consideration of the move will be delayed until spring. And in the president's home state, Republican Governor Rick Perry is backing a state education department move that will spare 40 percent of Texas districts from failing to make AYP this year. Unfortunately, the Texas Education Agency's approval of an additional 431 exemptions beyond the 1 percent cap on special education students taking easier, alternative assessments is in direct violation of federal rules. Shirley Neeley, the head of the Texas Education Agency, is playing a high-stakes game of chicken with Secretary Spellings. If the administration swerves first, this may be just the signal states have been seeking - namely, that the accountability provisions of NCLB are back on the table. So we're heartened to hear that the Department has rebuffed Connecticut's blatant attempt at an end-run around NCLB testing requirements. State officials there requested exemption from annual testing on the grounds that . . . well, on no real grounds at all, except that they don't much want to do it. In a letter to the state, Spellings gently reminded, "You cannot remedy weaknesses you do not know about." Which occasioned this sniffy comment from Commissioner Betty J. Sternberg: "I have to admit I'm disappointed by [her] answer. I was hoping for a real discussion on why it is we think it makes sense to [test] every other year." Apparently, the fact that it's the law isn't sense enough for Mrs. Sternberg.

"No Child growth proposal may stall," by Justin Gest, Houston Chronicle, March 1, 2005

"State loses testing appeal," by Robert Frahm, Hartford Courant, March 2, 2005

"Utah delays a challenge to federal law," by Sam Dillon, New York Times, March 2, 2005 (registration required)

"Consequences for Texas' defiance of law are unclear," by Justin Gest, Houston Chronicle, March 3, 2005

A year ago, responding to an outrageous piece by People for the American Way (as they pretentiously and falsely style themselves), I wrote in this space that a little "pork" in federal appropriations wasn't such a bad thing (see here). These Congressionally-earmarked projects, I argued,

may or may not  "succeed" but their prospects cannot be dimmer than those of Title I and other "formula" programs that . . . shovel out billions every year with no discernible impact on student achievement. At least the "pork" is going to places that want it for activities that they're keen to undertake, rather than being sent unbidden from Washington according to arcane formulae and intricate regulations.

I'm not recanting. But respectful of the principle that all things are best done in moderation, let me suggest that the Congressional pork shoppe has grown immoderately large and the Administration's response is strangely incomplete.

One can define "pork" as federal dollars directed by Congress to specific places, organizations, or institutions in ways that effectively block others from accessing those funds. The executive branch has its own version: "discretionary" grants that an agency awards to one recipient rather than another without conducting an open, merit-based competition.

Whether such a Treasury check arrives thanks to Congress or to the executive, it can generally be distinguished from "formula" programs (which distribute dollars based on objective factors such as population, poverty, age, etc.) and from "competitive grants" for which a wide array of institutions (e.g. universities, cities, hospitals, bio-medical researchers, aircraft manufacturers) can apply, with winners chosen according to more or less objective criteria.

Much can be said about the tilting of formulas to benefit particular places or outfits, and about the subjectivity and favoritism that creep into the "competitive" awards process. I don't contend that either is pure, only that they wear the garb of openness and uniform treatment rather than exclusiveness and pre-selection.

Back to pork. It comes in three forms.

First, as noted, federal agencies sometimes have "discretionary" dollars to award to programs or projects that they want to launch or sustain.

Second is the now-ubiquitous Congressional "earmark," about which more later.

Third is the authorized-and-appropriated "program" that's so narrowly crafted that its funds can go only to a handful of places or entities. Consider the "Alaska Native Education Equity" program ($34 million in FY05) and the "Education for Native Hawaiians" program (also $34 million).

Under this third heading come many of the 150-odd programs that President Bush has proposed for elimination in FY06, of which 48 are housed at the Education Department. Candidates for slaughter include the "Underground Railroad Program" ($2.2 million in 2005), which benefits a single museum in Cincinnati and the semi-notorious "Exchanges With Historic Whaling and Trading Partners" program ($8.5 million), for which only a handful of institutions in Alaska, Hawaii, and Massachusetts are eligible (See here). Others are larger, broader-based programs such as vocational/technical education ($1.3 billion) and "Safe and Drug-free Schools" ($437 million). (A list of Education Department programs targeted for elimination can be found here.)

Nobody really expects all, or even most, of these programs to bite the dust even though, as Secretary Spellings has noted, many of them are tiny and few can display evidence of effectiveness. Still, they have constituencies, lobbyists, and Congressional patrons-and that's usually all they need to stay alive and funded.

Now, back to the "earmarks." The President's budget never contains money for Congressional "earmarks." These get added during the appropriations process and are the best known form of pork. And they've been steadily growing, in FY05 to their highest level ever. At the Education Department alone, there are 1,182 of them, totaling $426 million.

True, it's a small fraction of the agency's total budget. True, some projects have merit. True, some have been around nearly forever. But this is no way to run a government. I have three major beefs, so to speak, with the pork.

First, they are the consequence of Washington's infatuation with lobbyists-the ever-growing army of highly paid influence peddlers who haunt the halls of Congress, who sponsor campaign fund raisers, and who recruit clients, promising them (along with much else) that "I can get you an earmark." It's squalid, it rewards the well-connected, and for the most part it wastes the taxpayer's money. As the list of earmarks lengthens, so does the size and allure of the lobbying industry.

Second, they overburden the executive branch while drying up its own "discretionary" dollars, thus discouraging able people from wanting to serve in government because there's so little they can accomplish there aside from managing earmarks-and, perhaps, prepping to become lobbyists themselves. This year's earmarks for the "Fund for Innovation in Education" total more than the entire appropriation for that program-Congress, too, is mathematically handicapped-and leave Secretary Spellings with virtually no say over any of those dollars. (She may have a couple million left for "new projects.") Yet while the White House is keen to explain why dozens of authorized programs should be scrapped, it's largely silent about earmarks. I know not why.

Third, finally, and most importantly, the runaway earmarking process teaches a wretched civics lesson at the very time we say we're concerned about forging better citizens. It reveals government itself to be a hypocrite, Constitutional processes free to be circumvented, and Washington to be a place where greed and cynicism reign and influence and connections matter more than merit. Is that what we want our kids to learn?

Achieve, Inc.
February 2005

A bunch of governors, a smattering of CEOs, and hordes of educators and hangers-on gathered this past weekend at a downtown Washington hotel to meditate on the plight of the American high school and what to do to fix (or replace) it. Bill Gates opened the "summit" with a withering indictment of today's high schools and, amid considerable hoopla and media attention, attendees struggled to propound alternative approaches. (The world's most successful capitalist did not, however, display inordinate affection for market-style solutions to education problems.) As with all "summits," the primary product had been scripted in advance, even released in advance, but it's a thoughtful piece of work that groups nine worthy "action items" under three headings: "restore value to the high school diploma," "redesign high schools," and "give high school students the excellent teachers and principals they need." Gates and several other foundations put some money on the table and a number of governors pledged their states to join the American Diploma Project, which seeks to harmonize high school exit standards with the entry expectations of colleges and employers. (See here and here.)

Though Secretary Spellings and several Congressmen addressed the closing session, this summit was not about federal policy. It was about what states should do to rekindle American secondary education, now being bested by many other countries. Two things struck me. First, how far every state has to go, against fierce interest group resistance and institutional inertia, to affect the changes set forth in the summit communiqu??; and, second, how closely this action agenda resembles an extension of NCLB to include high schools even as President Bush's plan to do precisely that is winning scant support on Capitol Hill. You can find the summiteers' action plan here.

"Mr. Gates goes to Washington," New York Times, March 1, 2005

"Microsoft's Gates urges Governors to restructure U.S. high schools," by Dan Balz, Washington Post, February 27, 2005

"Educational complacency will make U.S. feel the pain," Craig R. Barrett, USA Today, February 24, 2005 

"Governors seek rise in high school standards," by Greg Winter, New York Times, February 23, 2005

Cheri Pierson Yecke, Center of the American Experiment
February 2005

Former Minnesota education commissioner Cheri Pierson Yecke, newly announced as a candidate for Minnesota's Sixth Congressional District, compares that state's school districts according to their efficiency in producing high school graduates. She first divides a given district's graduation rate by the average graduation rate of its "peer group" (all districts sorted into quartiles according to the poverty level of their students); then she divides the district's per-pupil expenditures by the average level of its peer group. Next, she divides the former quotient by the latter and multiplies by 100 to produce, for that (and every) district, an "efficiency and effectiveness index," which she examines by quartiles. Then she engages in some interesting analyses of districts that are demographically similar yet very different in their efficiency/effectiveness. Perhaps of greatest national significance is the contrast between the Twin Cities: "Although similar in size and demographics," Yecke observes, "St. Paul manages to graduate 72 percent of its students, compared to 53 percent for Minneapolis - and spends $1,000 less per student doing so." A nice bit of analysis that shows, once again, that neither demographics nor expenditures are destiny when it comes to school performance. You can find it here.

Joy Hakim, Smithsonian Books
January 2005

This is an extraordinary book. Part of a planned series of six volumes on the history of science by distinguished textbook author Joy Hakim, Aristotle Leads the Way traces the development of scientific knowledge from the ancient world through the early Renaissance. Hakim is an engaging writer, unafraid of taking a stand and unembarrassed by the book's location of science in the humanities and its forthright focus on Western culture's outsized contributions to scientific inquiry. (Though she does not stint on non-Western history, either.) I found amazing the connections Hakim made between Western philosophy and religion and their creation of the rational, inquisitive mindset that makes modern science possible - connections you will rarely find in most textbooks. For example, she rightfully lingers on the early Renaissance philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas, who revitalized the Aristotelian approach of classification and careful observation that is the modus operandi of modern science. How many American middle schoolers even know the name Aquinas, much less can explain his significance? A few caveats: the book suffers slightly from what Diane Ravitch has called the "If it's Tuesday, this must be the Hittites" phenomenon, which is perhaps unavoidable in a history that spans millennia. And Hakim is a bit broad in some of her characterizations of religion, especially the other-worldly Christianity that developed in the Medieval era, which was not so anti-intellectual as she sometimes suggests. But these are quibbles that arise from something incredibly refreshing in a textbook: a crisp and articulate point of view. Get it here, read it for yourself, and pass it on to teachers and students. You and they will be better educated for it. I sure was.

Saul Geiser and Veronica Santelices, Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California at Berkeley
2004

This report questions the large role that AP classes play in admissions to elite colleges and universities and finds that "the number of AP and honors courses taken in high school bears little or no relationship to students' later performance in college." Colleges will often weigh students' AP courses through a point system or "holistically," regardless of whether they took the corresponding exam. The authors conclude that, while AP test scores correlate with college success, simply passing an AP course does not. Because of the admissions advantage of taking AP classes, many high schools feel pressured to "offer more advanced courses than they are able to support adequately with trained teachers and other resources." This means that students can receive good grades in an AP-labeled class yet not achieve at AP standards. Also, the system of adding points for AP classes (an A in an AP class typically yields 5 points instead of 4, a B confers 4 instead of 3, and so on) can inflate students' GPA - the mean GPA of freshmen admitted to Berkeley is an astonishing 4.31. Many students in poor districts can't realistically achieve this GPA because of the lack of AP courses. The report, however, studies Cal-Berkeley students; would there be a different outcome for them at a less selective school? Students at less prestigious schools who took an AP course in high school might be better off than the larger number of students who didn't. But as the authors stress, this study is focused on "the use of AP and other honors-level coursework as a criterion for admission at elite colleges and universities." And for that, it provides convincing evidence that a reassessment is in order. You can read the report here.