The Education Gadfly Weekly

Americans err on the side of polite tolerance when asked their general opinions on learning disabilities (LD). When further prodded, however, most turn out to misunderstand the very nature of these disabilities—and to attach stigma to them. Those are the main takeaways from this 2010 survey of public perceptions of learning disabilities (LD), the fourth in a series commissioned by the Emily Hall Tremaine Foundation. It asked 1000 individuals—members of the general public, parents, and educators—a series of questions on their views and understandings of LD. The results are not entirely reassuring. For example, many parents (55 percent) feel LDs are caused by laziness or home environment, and thus avoid early intervention strategies in hopes that their children will “grow out of” the problem. And while 80 percent of respondents agree that “children with learning disabilities are just as smart as you and me,” over three-quarters also associate LDs—which, properly diagnosed, are neurologically-based disabilities, like dyslexia—with unrelated disorders like mental retardation and autism. The majority of teachers and administrators also conflate LDs with other special education diagnoses, though they claim to be prepared to teach LD students. These confused and contradictory perceptions haven’t changed much since Tremaine’s 2004 survey. What is to be done?

GfK Roper Public Affairs and Corporate Communications, “Measuring Progress in Public & Parental Understanding of Learning Disabilities,” (Emily Hall Tremaine Foundation, September 2010).

Beginning with the Coleman report in 1966, there has been evidence that poor students learn more when they go to school with middle-class children. Thanks to Montgomery County, MD, that evidence is a lot stronger today. For forty years, this affluent Washington suburb has required developers of new subdivisions or condominiums to set-aside units for low-income residents, creating opportunities for poor children to live—and go to neighborhood schools—with more affluent agemates. What’s more, families who apply to these housing units are randomly selected, creating perfect conditions for rigorous social science. Availing itself of this opportunity, the Century Foundation tracked 858 low-income-elementary students in these mixed housing units from 2001 to 2007. They found that students attending low-poverty schools—those with less than 20 percent of students eligible for subsidized lunch—made significant gains compared to their peers in higher-poverty schools, and compared to their non-poor peers. These youngsters cut their initial math achievement gaps vis-à-vis non-poor students by half. In reading, the reduction was a third. These gains began to evaporate, however, in schools where more than 35 percent of students qualify for subsidized lunch and all but vanished from schools with 60 percent or more low-income students, notwithstanding that the school system spent significantly more money in those high-need schools. So what’s the conclusion? Policies that work to bring poor kids into middle class schools do more for them than simply pumping resources into high-poverty schools. Coleman was right: peers matter, and money doesn't.

Heather Schwartz, “Housing Policy is School Policy: Economically Integrative Housing Promotes Academic Success in Montgomery County, Maryland,” (New York, NY: Century Foundation, 2010).

District leaders faced with tough decisions on budgetary matters would be wise to turn to this guide from Education Resource Strategies (one in a helpful series). There they’ll find a self-assessment through which they may uncover deficiencies in their approaches to spending, based on three criteria: equity (in resource allocation across the district), transparency (in the allocation process), and flexibility (for school leaders). The publication also supplies analyses and worksheets allowing district leaders to dig deeper. For example, it analyzes the fiscal consequences of an inefficient distribution of programs like special education classes across schools. It asks district leaders to determine how students are matched with these programs and then recommends that student placement become more strategic. This self-help book is a valuable resource, particularly when joined to Fordham’s recent volume or our upcoming event.

Education Resource Strategies, School Funding Systems: Equity, Transparency, Flexibility, (Watertown, MA: Education Resource Strategies, September 2010).

By analyzing the ups and downs of mayoral control of schools in nine cities (including New York, Washington, D.C., Cleveland, and Boston), this study aims to provide New Jersey policymakers with recommendations as they transition from state control back to local governance in Newark, Paterson, and Jersey City. It’s somewhat sobering, though, as the analysts find no solid link between mayoral control and student achievement. But that’s not the whole story. On the downside, mayoral control is associated in many (though not all) places with diminished parental and community involvement in education. On the other hand, it corresponds to increased school funding, greater public commitment to education, and enhanced stability in the district, as well as stronger accountability and efficiency. More pluses, it would appear to us, than minuses. Ultimately, however, analysts find none of the analyzed models to be ideal, but several offer elements worth considering.

Ruth Moscovitch, Alan R. Sadovnik, Jason M. Barr, Tara Davidson, Teresa L. Moore, Roslyn Powell, Paul L.Tractenberg, Eric Wagman, and Peijia Zha, “Governance and Urban School Improvement: Lessons for New Jersey from Nine Cities,” (Newark, NJ: Institute on Education Law and Policy: Rutgers, August 2010).

Two recent articles—a puff piece in the New York Times and a self-penned op-ed in the Washington Post—have sought to clear the name of oft-demonized AFT leader Randi Weingarten. The Times asserted that yes, she really truly does embrace reforms like performance pay and improved teacher evaluations. Her own op-ed proffers an olive branch to district leaders and offers to collaborate on education reform. That’s all well and good, but actions still speak louder than words. If she’s so pro-school reform, how come Weingarten used every means at her disposal (lawsuits, a million bucks to defeat Adrian Fenty) to fend off Michelle Rhee’s efforts to re-engineer teacher pay and seniority?  Moreover, as with Al Shanker in the old days, the AFT’s state and local affiliates are free—and likely—to keep doing what they always do: obstruct reform. Observe the recent Baltimore vote. While Randi may not be the “foaming satanic beast” that Waiting for “Superman” allegedly depicted her as, she is no fervent agent of change, either, no matter what her new PR campaign would have you believe.

“Despite Image, Union Leader Backs School Change,” by Trip Gabriel, New York Times, October 15, 2010.

“Don’t scapegoat America’s teachers,” by Randi Weingarten, Washington Post, October 17, 2010.

Since the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s much-discussed 1965 report on the “Negro family,”  the “culture of poverty”—the idea that the poor adapt to poverty in ways that ultimately reinforce and perpetuate their condition—has been a taboo topic in polite (er, politically correct) society. Lately, though, sociologists have again begun to investigate this phenomenon, seeking a clearer understanding of why poor families tend to stay that way from generation to generation.  What this means for education is particularly interesting. New findings indicate that income alone does not determine a student’s ability to succeed. Great schools and programs change lives and life prospects, while helping to create support networks for children and parents alike. (See David Whitman’s excellent book, Sweating the Small Stuff, and Casey Carter’s brand-new one, On Purpose.) It is not the role of schools to cure every social ill. But, for better (and sometimes for worse), they affect cultures as well as individuals.

“Culture of Poverty Makes a Comeback,” by Patricia Cohen, New York Times, October 17, 2010.

District leaders faced with tough decisions on budgetary matters would be wise to turn to this guide from Education Resource Strategies (one in a helpful series). There they’ll find a self-assessment through which they may uncover deficiencies in their approaches to spending, based on three criteria: equity (in resource allocation across the district), transparency (in the allocation process), and flexibility (for school leaders). The publication also supplies analyses and worksheets allowing district leaders to dig deeper. For example, it analyzes the fiscal consequences of an inefficient distribution of programs like special education classes across schools. It asks district leaders to determine how students are matched with these programs and then recommends that student placement become more strategic. This self-help book is a valuable resource, particularly when joined to Fordham’s recent volume or our upcoming event.

Education Resource Strategies, School Funding Systems: Equity, Transparency, Flexibility, (Watertown, MA: Education Resource Strategies, September 2010).

Americans err on the side of polite tolerance when asked their general opinions on learning disabilities (LD). When further prodded, however, most turn out to misunderstand the very nature of these disabilities—and to attach stigma to them. Those are the main takeaways from this 2010 survey of public perceptions of learning disabilities (LD), the fourth in a series commissioned by the Emily Hall Tremaine Foundation. It asked 1000 individuals—members of the general public, parents, and educators—a series of questions on their views and understandings of LD. The results are not entirely reassuring. For example, many parents (55 percent) feel LDs are caused by laziness or home environment, and thus avoid early intervention strategies in hopes that their children will “grow out of” the problem. And while 80 percent of respondents agree that “children with learning disabilities are just as smart as you and me,” over three-quarters also associate LDs—which, properly diagnosed, are neurologically-based disabilities, like dyslexia—with unrelated disorders like mental retardation and autism. The majority of teachers and administrators also conflate LDs with other special education diagnoses, though they claim to be prepared to teach LD students. These confused and contradictory perceptions haven’t changed much since Tremaine’s 2004 survey. What is to be done?

GfK Roper Public Affairs and Corporate Communications, “Measuring Progress in Public & Parental Understanding of Learning Disabilities,” (Emily Hall Tremaine Foundation, September 2010).

Beginning with the Coleman report in 1966, there has been evidence that poor students learn more when they go to school with middle-class children. Thanks to Montgomery County, MD, that evidence is a lot stronger today. For forty years, this affluent Washington suburb has required developers of new subdivisions or condominiums to set-aside units for low-income residents, creating opportunities for poor children to live—and go to neighborhood schools—with more affluent agemates. What’s more, families who apply to these housing units are randomly selected, creating perfect conditions for rigorous social science. Availing itself of this opportunity, the Century Foundation tracked 858 low-income-elementary students in these mixed housing units from 2001 to 2007. They found that students attending low-poverty schools—those with less than 20 percent of students eligible for subsidized lunch—made significant gains compared to their peers in higher-poverty schools, and compared to their non-poor peers. These youngsters cut their initial math achievement gaps vis-à-vis non-poor students by half. In reading, the reduction was a third. These gains began to evaporate, however, in schools where more than 35 percent of students qualify for subsidized lunch and all but vanished from schools with 60 percent or more low-income students, notwithstanding that the school system spent significantly more money in those high-need schools. So what’s the conclusion? Policies that work to bring poor kids into middle class schools do more for them than simply pumping resources into high-poverty schools. Coleman was right: peers matter, and money doesn't.

Heather Schwartz, “Housing Policy is School Policy: Economically Integrative Housing Promotes Academic Success in Montgomery County, Maryland,” (New York, NY: Century Foundation, 2010).

By analyzing the ups and downs of mayoral control of schools in nine cities (including New York, Washington, D.C., Cleveland, and Boston), this study aims to provide New Jersey policymakers with recommendations as they transition from state control back to local governance in Newark, Paterson, and Jersey City. It’s somewhat sobering, though, as the analysts find no solid link between mayoral control and student achievement. But that’s not the whole story. On the downside, mayoral control is associated in many (though not all) places with diminished parental and community involvement in education. On the other hand, it corresponds to increased school funding, greater public commitment to education, and enhanced stability in the district, as well as stronger accountability and efficiency. More pluses, it would appear to us, than minuses. Ultimately, however, analysts find none of the analyzed models to be ideal, but several offer elements worth considering.

Ruth Moscovitch, Alan R. Sadovnik, Jason M. Barr, Tara Davidson, Teresa L. Moore, Roslyn Powell, Paul L.Tractenberg, Eric Wagman, and Peijia Zha, “Governance and Urban School Improvement: Lessons for New Jersey from Nine Cities,” (Newark, NJ: Institute on Education Law and Policy: Rutgers, August 2010).