The Education Gadfly Weekly

The Learning First Alliance
March 2003

In this report, the Learning First Alliance (LFA) seeks to explain how high-poverty, low-performing districts have been able to turn things around and climb onto the path to increased achievement. LFA was particularly interested in district-level improvements, with an eye to gaining insight about effective system-wide reforms. Based on its analysis of five high-poverty districts that have made strides in student achievement, LFA finds support for what many have long thought: that school improvement requires faculty and community buy-in, data-driven decision-making, high standards, accountability for results, and a steadfast focus on raising achievement. Though the authors downplay the transformative role that charter schools and competition can play in system-wide change, the lessons here are valuable if increasingly commonplace. To order or download the report, go to http://www.learningfirst.org/bie/bie.html.

John E. Chubb and Tom Loveless, eds.
Brookings Institution Press
2002

Arguably the most intractable problem of American education is the white-minority achievement gap. But solutions may be in sight. Bridging the Achievement Gap shows that this gap can be bridged. The authors describe schools and school reforms that are boosting the achievement of minority students to levels near those of whites. One strategy that has shown results, for example, say Alan Krueger and Diane Whitmore, is smaller classes for K-3 students. Another promising reform is vouchers. In a chapter by Paul Peterson and William Howell there is strong evidence presented that "black students show a clear benefit from attending private school as compared with black students attending public school." Comprehensive reform models, such as Modern Red School House and Direct Instruction, also offer hope for closing the achievement gap. Success for All creators Robert Slavin and Nancy Madden describe how reading achievement has been boosted for black students in several settings by the use of that program. Other promising strategies include focusing on core academic skills, enrolling students in more challenging courses, administering annual achievement tests and using the results to inform instruction, engaging parents in their children's learning, and injecting competition into schooling. This book is optimistic and an important resource for those struggling to close the achievement gap. To order a copy, surf to http://www.brookings.edu/press/books/bridgingtheachievementgap.htm.

The Indiana Center for Evaluation
March 2003

The Indiana Center for Evaluation continues its state (of Ohio) financed evaluation of the Cleveland voucher program. This "second annual report" presents evidence from autumn 1998 through April 2001 that bears on student and school characteristics and achievement. The students are part of the cohort that entered first grade in 1998 and was nearing the end of third grade in 2001. With the Supreme Court having okayed the program's constitutionality, one naturally wants to know "how it's working," but you won't learn much on that score from this report. It finds few differences in students, schools and achievement results between those using scholarships and those remaining in Cleveland's public schools, though there are lots of interesting tidbits, some of them counterintuitive. (For example, private schools have larger classes AND larger classes are positively associated with higher academic achievement.) The authors note "some evidence of a pattern of slightly greater annual achievement growth among students who have used a scholarship continuously since kindergarten" but say this difference is not yet statistically significant and the children need to be followed over a longer period. The authors (Kim Metcalf and colleagues) don't bother to point out that, even if achievement is identical, the private-school version is being produced at a fraction of the cost of the public-school version. You can find it on the web at http://www.indiana.edu/~iuice/. (When you get there, click on "reports link.")

The National Center for Education Statistics
April 2003

The National Center for Education Statistics has published this 30-page summary of U.S.-relevant findings from the long-awaited PIRLS study of reading literacy among 9 year olds, conducted by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). Thirty-five countries participated in this first round of a planned 5-year cycle of international trend studies in reading literacy. Bottom line: On average, U.S. fourth graders did better at reading than most--but not all--of their age mates in other lands. On a scale that combines literary and informational reading, they were surpassed only by England, Sweden and Netherlands. Good news, surely, as far as it goes, though America generally looks better on 4th grade comparisons than at the end of middle and high school. But it's not good news for everybody. African-American youngsters' reading score is smack at the international average, tied with Slovenia. Scores for U.S. youngsters in high-poverty schools are between those of Turkey and Moldova, this despite the fact that American schools spend far more time on reading than schools in other lands. (65% of U.S. 4th graders undergo 6+ hours of weekly reading instruction; worldwide, just 28% of kids are in such reading-intensive classrooms.) Readers may be surprised to learn that the average American 4th grader is being taught by a teacher with MORE years of experience (7) than the international norm (5). They are apt to be less surprised to see that U.S. private school pupils score significantly higher than those enrolled in public schools. (That difference is similar to the white-minority score gap.) There's plenty more here, as well as in the big tables that show more detail on other countries. You can find the U.S. report at http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003073 and the worldwide IEA reports at http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003026.

Dan Goldhaber, The University of Washington
March 2003

Dan Goldhaber of the University of Washington, joined by David Perry and Emily Anthony of the Urban Institute, have taken a close look at North Carolina teachers who apply to--and are certified by--the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). On the whole, they find, teachers seeking NBPTS credentials tend to be female, black, young and relatively high scorers on standardized tests. But they also find that black and male applicants are less likely to succeed. Indeed, while "African-American teachers make up approximately the same percentage in the NBPTS applicant pool as in the teaching workforce as a whole&they are grossly underrepresented in North Carolina's share of National Board teachers&.We also find that, all else equal, male teachers are significantly less likely to both apply for and be NBPTS certified than female teachers." Moreover, "teachers are more likely to be certified if they are teaching in more affluent schools and districts with high achieving students." There's more--and at least some of it should worry acolytes and leaders of the National Board. You can find this paper at http://www.evansuw.org/FAC/Goldhaber/pdf/NBPTS_A-S.pdf.

Diane Ravitch, Alfred A. Knopf Publishers
April 2003

Diane Ravitch's important and troubling new book, subtitled "how pressure groups restrict what children learn," is one you'll want to read and keep and refer back to. It explains how nearly all of the instructional materials that U.S. school children encounter--textbooks, readers, even test questions--have been dulled and dumbed by the forces of political correctness, "bias" and "sensitivity." At first, the push to dullness came from watchdog groups on left and right. How, however, it's been internalized by the publishing (and testing) industry, which subjects everything it sells into the school market to ridiculous self-censorship. Ravitch includes a 30-page appendix--a "glossary of banned words, usages, stereotypes and topics"--that will make you laugh and then cry. For parents (and brave educators) who want to resist, she also supplies a 30-page list of "classic" children's literature that one could encourage kids to read if one is not terrified of the language cops. The ISBN is 0375414827, the publisher is Knopf, and you can find more information athttp://www.randomhouse.com/knopf/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=0375414827. See also "Textbook examples of PC Schools have put sensitivity ahead of truth, author says," by Greg Toppo, USA Today, April 17, 2003.

Andrew Zucker, Robert Kuzma, Louise Yarnall, Camille Marder, Teachers College Press
January 2003

Andrew Zucker and Robert Kuzma are lead authors of this interesting exploration of "virtual" secondary education in America in 2002, a fast-changing subject that will doubtless evolve even faster in the years ahead. In 160 pages, they describe this phenomenon, illustrate it with examples from a number of schools and programs, explain the problems and opportunities facing virtual secondary schooling, and frame the issues that will shape its future. It's a thoughtful, perceptive and only mildly boosterish take on a timely topic and potentially valuable source of instruction and learning. The ISBN is 080774286, the publisher is Teachers College Press and you can get more information at http://store.tcpress.com/0807742864.shtml#723.

The challenge of basing education policy on sound research

Earlier this year, Mathematica Policy Research released a sophisticated study of federally funded after-school programs showing that such programs do not raise the academic achievement of participating students. After the Bush administration proceeded to reduce funding for these programs, some social scientists were pleased to see that the results of a high-quality study were--for once--influencing policymaking. Yet the study's conclusions have been ignored or scorned by advocates of more funding for after-school programs. A thoughtful piece by Jay Mathews explores the tensions between academic research and policymaking.

"Academic research a study in politics," by Jay Mathews, The Washington Post, April 22, 2003

An Ohio judge ruled this week that the Buckeye State's 6-year-old charter school law does not violate the state Constitution, gutting major portions of a lawsuit filed by a coalition led by the Ohio Federation of Teachers. The suit had argued that charter schools are unconstitutional because a) the legislature had usurped the authority of local school boards in allowing charter schools to be created, b) the method of funding charter schools diverts local tax revenues, c) the schools violate the guarantee of a "thorough and efficient" system of public schools since they operate according to different (and lower) standards, and d) private entities are allowed to run schools. The judge dismissed all four counts. Though several smaller issues in the lawsuit were not addressed by the ruling, they do not directly threaten the existence of Ohio's charter school system, which currently serves about 34,000 students in 132 schools. Of course the OFT is threatening to appeal this week's ruling.

"Court ruling gives boost to charter schools," by Scott Stephens, Cleveland Plain Dealer, April 22, 2003

"Charter schools ruled constitutional," by James Drew, Toledo Blade, April 22, 2003

Next week is National Charter Schools Week. For a list of special activities across the country, visit http://www.charterfriends.org/csweek/state.htm

The April/May 2003 issue of American Enterprise, organized around the theme Race, Broken Schools, and Affirmative Action, contains several interesting articles on school choice. In one, AEI scholar Rick Hess notes that suburban resistance to school choice is entirely rational: families in suburbs have no reason to welcome measures that--as they see them--undercut the educational security they have struggled to achieve for their children. Suburban opposition to vouchers is unlikely to go away, Hess says, unless efforts are made to provides such families with incentives, compensation, or limits on the ill-effects of choice. Among his suggestions: convince suburban voters that their schools are worse than they think; confine choice to urban districts; encourage new schools to provide options heretofore unavailable to suburban parents, like advanced courses or different school schedules or calendars; or offer homeowners a tax deduction for the amount of value their homes lose in the aftermath of choice-based reform.

"Sweeten the pot for middle America," by Frederick Hess, The American Enterprise, April/May 2003, and other articles in the same issue. Some are available at http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/taeam03.htm (but not the Hess article). Instructions for ordering a copy of the magazine are at http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/taeback.htm.

Yesterday's New York Times reports on two new studies that challenge test critics' claims that high-stakes testing undermines learning and hurts struggling students. Both studies instead find that high-stakes testing brings about academic gains, particularly for minority students. The first, by Martin Carnoy and Susanna Loeb, is to be published next month in Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. The study is not yet available but, says the Times, the authors find that states whose tests have serious consequences did better on nationwide tests and that the more consequences the state imposes, the better the state's minority students do. The second study, by Margaret Raymond and Eric Hanushek, was reviewed in last week's Gadfly. [See our review of "Shopping for Evidence Against School Accountability," by Margaret Raymond and Eric Hanushek.]

"New ammunition for backers of do-or-die exams," by Greg Winter, The New York Times, April 23, 2003

Launched just over two years ago, New Leaders for New Schools (NLNS) recruits and trains outstanding prospective principals who lack conventional credentials and puts them on a fast track to public (and charter) school leadership positions. An article by Alexander Russo in New York-based City Limits magazine describes some of the challenges the program has encountered in its first two years as well as its prospects for the future. Only one of ten applicants is accepted into the program, which will train 70 prospective principals next year in Chicago, New York, and Washington/Baltimore. The fifteen candidates in the first cohort ranged in age from 26 to 56, and half came from outside education. After completing a summer's worth of classes and a 10-month paid residency (at $45,000) under the supervision of a mentor, thirteen of them found jobs as principals, seven of them in new or charter schools. Breaking into traditional neighborhood schools--even for internships--has been a challenge, but the program expects to continue to expand. In New York City, Chancellor Joel Klein has already announced a principal-training program of his own that includes many NLNS features.

"Making change: Fast forward," by Alexander Russo, City Limits, May 2003

A plan developed with the assistance of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association and backed by the school board would replace the traditional teacher salary schedule with a system of incentives based on performance if teachers vote to approve it next year. Salary increases and bonuses would be awarded to proven teachers who work in low-achieving schools and to other teachers meeting rigorous expectations, with teachers able to earn up to $90,000 early in their careers. (A pilot pay-for-performance program that has been operating in a few Denver schools since 1999-2000 rewards teachers for meeting goals they set for themselves.) The new plan will be discussed over the next several months and a vote is scheduled for March 2004.

"DPS considers merit pay," by Monte Whaley, The Denver Post, April 23, 2003

"New pay scale possible for Denver teachers," by Holly Yettick, The Rocky Mountain News, April 19, 2003

Nobody likes having their budgets cut or income diminished. But my gracious, what a lot of griping, blaming and gnashing of teeth there has been in recent weeks with regard to public-school budgets. A blizzard of articles has chronicled the fiscal agonies of school systems whose revenues are pinched by the present downturn in state and municipal tax collections. This week, The New York Times reported that a dozen states have issued layoff notices to teachers, that there will be no summer school in San Francisco and that students at two Kansas elementary schools "emptied their coin jars to keep nurses and foreign-language teachers." The Washington Post recently quoted school officials predicting that "the reductions would take a toll on student performance as districts increase class size, pare teacher training programs and cut services..." and that "the Bush administration's signature effort to raise the performance of all students could be in jeopardy if the budget crises persist another year or two."

That, in any case, is the conventional wisdom in education land. And nobody denies that belt-tightening is painful. Yet the conventional wisdom sometimes harbors fallacies and illusions, too. Half a dozen such may be at work here.

First, school spending keeps rising in many places, if not as fast as before. The Census Bureau reports that the average per pupil outlay in U.S. public schools in 2001 ($7284) was up $448 from the previous year, despite the recession's onset. True, some states and communities are actually REDUCING their school budgets. Yet the basic trend line remains upward, as it has for decades--and today's cuts are typically being made in increases that occurred only yesterday.

Second, despite the passage of almost four decades, our public-education system has not yet internalized the central lesson of James Coleman's famous 1966 report and a million subsequent studies: there's no reliable link between the resources going into schools and the learning that comes out. Here and abroad, some superbly effective schools operate on cramped budgets in shabby facilities, sometimes with enormous classes, even as too many generously funded schools in fancy digs are places where children learn very little. (Think of Catholic schools as examples of the former; the school systems of Newark, Kansas City and the District of Columbia as specimens of the latter.) The big question about U.S. schools is not whether we're spending enough on them but whether we're getting our money's worth.

Third, observe the tendency to seize upon budgetary stringency as a rationalization for achievement gains that may not materialize. Especially worrisome is the habit that many state and local officials (and more than a few Congressional Democrats) have slipped into: proclaiming that No Child Left Behind is toast unless Uncle Sam antes up billions more to pay for implementing it. Because they will always find the billions too few, they seem to be stockpiling an excuse for later education failure. How much easier to blame skinflints in Washington than to undertake the heavy lifting needed to change one's school system into a high-performance enterprise.

Fourth, in too many town meetings and legislative hearings, the budget pinch is also becoming a sneaky, self-serving way for the public-school monopoly to strike out at charter schools and other unwanted rivals. This takes the form of scapegoating the competitors as thieves that pilfer scarce dollars from the "real" public schools--and as a luxury that perhaps the state or community might experiment with in flush times but cannot afford when money is tight.

Fifth, we see signs of the "Washington Monument gambit," i.e. the threat by the National Park Service that, if it doesn't get more money, it won't be able to keep one of the Capital's foremost tourist attractions open for visitors. Its counterpart in public education is to say that, if we don't get more money from (take your pick) the county, the state or the federal government, we'll have to (take your pick) eliminate sports, increase class size, abbreviate the school year, scrap gifted education, end after-school programs, curb college counseling, close the school library, etc., etc. That's how school systems think about budgets: in terms of "programs" and "services," not efficiencies, productivity or such tradeoffs as personnel versus technology.

Sixth, that's because public schools have a terrible time coping with budgetary adversity. They put nearly all their money into salaries and benefits--80.6 percent of school operating budgets, says the Census Bureau--and they keep hiring more people and giving them across-the-board raises. Then they confer tenure and enter into contracts such that it's nearly impossible to let anyone go, much less cut their wages.

Yet the regular world isn't like that. Airlines faced with the threat of bankruptcy have been renegotiating contracts, slashing salaries (from mechanics and cabin attendants up to top executives) and laying off thousands. So do most organizations outside government--including, when necessary, private and charter schools. But when did you last hear a school board talk about pay cuts or contract re-negotiations? Of laying off less productive and higher-priced workers? (Most public-school RIFs take the form of scrapping entire programs or activities rather than pink slips for individuals.) What about introducing distance learning and teacher aides in lieu of more full-fledged teachers with ever-smaller classes?

To be sure, airlines can eliminate flights while schools cannot eliminate students needing to be served. Many schools, however, are being paid for youngsters whom they're not actually serving. State aid in Ohio, for example, is based on the number of pupils carried on a school's rolls, not the number that attend--yet a pending proposal to shift the basis from "average daily membership" to "average daily attendance" has been met with howls of outrage. (In some school systems, absenteeism runs as high as 15% on a typical day.)

Airlines also opt for smaller planes and lower-salaried pilots when they must. Technology replaces baggage handlers and check-in people. The Internet substitutes for reservations offices and staff. Why can't public education think that way? Put some of its creativity into devising cheaper ways of doing things? It could, of course, but so far it seems to prefer whining, scapegoating, slamming rivals, threatening to shut down its most popular offerings and explaining that any shortfalls on the student-achievement front are nobody's fault but the taxpayer's.

"States, Facing Budget Shortfalls, Cut the Major and the Mundane," by Timothy Egan, The New York Times, April 21, 2003

"States cutting school funding," by Dale Russakoff and Linda Perlstein, The Washington Post, March 15, 2003

Andrew Zucker, Robert Kuzma, Louise Yarnall, Camille Marder, Teachers College Press
January 2003

Andrew Zucker and Robert Kuzma are lead authors of this interesting exploration of "virtual" secondary education in America in 2002, a fast-changing subject that will doubtless evolve even faster in the years ahead. In 160 pages, they describe this phenomenon, illustrate it with examples from a number of schools and programs, explain the problems and opportunities facing virtual secondary schooling, and frame the issues that will shape its future. It's a thoughtful, perceptive and only mildly boosterish take on a timely topic and potentially valuable source of instruction and learning. The ISBN is 080774286, the publisher is Teachers College Press and you can get more information at http://store.tcpress.com/0807742864.shtml#723.

Dan Goldhaber, The University of Washington
March 2003

Dan Goldhaber of the University of Washington, joined by David Perry and Emily Anthony of the Urban Institute, have taken a close look at North Carolina teachers who apply to--and are certified by--the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). On the whole, they find, teachers seeking NBPTS credentials tend to be female, black, young and relatively high scorers on standardized tests. But they also find that black and male applicants are less likely to succeed. Indeed, while "African-American teachers make up approximately the same percentage in the NBPTS applicant pool as in the teaching workforce as a whole&they are grossly underrepresented in North Carolina's share of National Board teachers&.We also find that, all else equal, male teachers are significantly less likely to both apply for and be NBPTS certified than female teachers." Moreover, "teachers are more likely to be certified if they are teaching in more affluent schools and districts with high achieving students." There's more--and at least some of it should worry acolytes and leaders of the National Board. You can find this paper at http://www.evansuw.org/FAC/Goldhaber/pdf/NBPTS_A-S.pdf.

John E. Chubb and Tom Loveless, eds.
Brookings Institution Press
2002

Arguably the most intractable problem of American education is the white-minority achievement gap. But solutions may be in sight. Bridging the Achievement Gap shows that this gap can be bridged. The authors describe schools and school reforms that are boosting the achievement of minority students to levels near those of whites. One strategy that has shown results, for example, say Alan Krueger and Diane Whitmore, is smaller classes for K-3 students. Another promising reform is vouchers. In a chapter by Paul Peterson and William Howell there is strong evidence presented that "black students show a clear benefit from attending private school as compared with black students attending public school." Comprehensive reform models, such as Modern Red School House and Direct Instruction, also offer hope for closing the achievement gap. Success for All creators Robert Slavin and Nancy Madden describe how reading achievement has been boosted for black students in several settings by the use of that program. Other promising strategies include focusing on core academic skills, enrolling students in more challenging courses, administering annual achievement tests and using the results to inform instruction, engaging parents in their children's learning, and injecting competition into schooling. This book is optimistic and an important resource for those struggling to close the achievement gap. To order a copy, surf to http://www.brookings.edu/press/books/bridgingtheachievementgap.htm.

The Indiana Center for Evaluation
March 2003

The Indiana Center for Evaluation continues its state (of Ohio) financed evaluation of the Cleveland voucher program. This "second annual report" presents evidence from autumn 1998 through April 2001 that bears on student and school characteristics and achievement. The students are part of the cohort that entered first grade in 1998 and was nearing the end of third grade in 2001. With the Supreme Court having okayed the program's constitutionality, one naturally wants to know "how it's working," but you won't learn much on that score from this report. It finds few differences in students, schools and achievement results between those using scholarships and those remaining in Cleveland's public schools, though there are lots of interesting tidbits, some of them counterintuitive. (For example, private schools have larger classes AND larger classes are positively associated with higher academic achievement.) The authors note "some evidence of a pattern of slightly greater annual achievement growth among students who have used a scholarship continuously since kindergarten" but say this difference is not yet statistically significant and the children need to be followed over a longer period. The authors (Kim Metcalf and colleagues) don't bother to point out that, even if achievement is identical, the private-school version is being produced at a fraction of the cost of the public-school version. You can find it on the web at http://www.indiana.edu/~iuice/. (When you get there, click on "reports link.")

The Learning First Alliance
March 2003

In this report, the Learning First Alliance (LFA) seeks to explain how high-poverty, low-performing districts have been able to turn things around and climb onto the path to increased achievement. LFA was particularly interested in district-level improvements, with an eye to gaining insight about effective system-wide reforms. Based on its analysis of five high-poverty districts that have made strides in student achievement, LFA finds support for what many have long thought: that school improvement requires faculty and community buy-in, data-driven decision-making, high standards, accountability for results, and a steadfast focus on raising achievement. Though the authors downplay the transformative role that charter schools and competition can play in system-wide change, the lessons here are valuable if increasingly commonplace. To order or download the report, go to http://www.learningfirst.org/bie/bie.html.

The National Center for Education Statistics
April 2003

The National Center for Education Statistics has published this 30-page summary of U.S.-relevant findings from the long-awaited PIRLS study of reading literacy among 9 year olds, conducted by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). Thirty-five countries participated in this first round of a planned 5-year cycle of international trend studies in reading literacy. Bottom line: On average, U.S. fourth graders did better at reading than most--but not all--of their age mates in other lands. On a scale that combines literary and informational reading, they were surpassed only by England, Sweden and Netherlands. Good news, surely, as far as it goes, though America generally looks better on 4th grade comparisons than at the end of middle and high school. But it's not good news for everybody. African-American youngsters' reading score is smack at the international average, tied with Slovenia. Scores for U.S. youngsters in high-poverty schools are between those of Turkey and Moldova, this despite the fact that American schools spend far more time on reading than schools in other lands. (65% of U.S. 4th graders undergo 6+ hours of weekly reading instruction; worldwide, just 28% of kids are in such reading-intensive classrooms.) Readers may be surprised to learn that the average American 4th grader is being taught by a teacher with MORE years of experience (7) than the international norm (5). They are apt to be less surprised to see that U.S. private school pupils score significantly higher than those enrolled in public schools. (That difference is similar to the white-minority score gap.) There's plenty more here, as well as in the big tables that show more detail on other countries. You can find the U.S. report at http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003073 and the worldwide IEA reports at http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003026.

Diane Ravitch, Alfred A. Knopf Publishers
April 2003

Diane Ravitch's important and troubling new book, subtitled "how pressure groups restrict what children learn," is one you'll want to read and keep and refer back to. It explains how nearly all of the instructional materials that U.S. school children encounter--textbooks, readers, even test questions--have been dulled and dumbed by the forces of political correctness, "bias" and "sensitivity." At first, the push to dullness came from watchdog groups on left and right. How, however, it's been internalized by the publishing (and testing) industry, which subjects everything it sells into the school market to ridiculous self-censorship. Ravitch includes a 30-page appendix--a "glossary of banned words, usages, stereotypes and topics"--that will make you laugh and then cry. For parents (and brave educators) who want to resist, she also supplies a 30-page list of "classic" children's literature that one could encourage kids to read if one is not terrified of the language cops. The ISBN is 0375414827, the publisher is Knopf, and you can find more information athttp://www.randomhouse.com/knopf/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=0375414827. See also "Textbook examples of PC Schools have put sensitivity ahead of truth, author says," by Greg Toppo, USA Today, April 17, 2003.