The Education Gadfly Weekly

Directed by Alan Raymond and Susan Raymond
Home Box Office
June 2008

This documentary has already been dissected in several places, but it's almost two hours long so there's plenty more to say about it. Though it offers a few uplifting scenes, Hard Times at Douglass High is mostly a picture of failure and despair in one Baltimore school. The year before it was filmed, only 10 percent of Douglass students passed the Maryland state English exam and only one percent passed in algebra. By the end of their freshman year, 50 percent of the school's ninth graders will either drop out, move, or stop attending. That's despite the fact that the school's faculty and staff spend inordinate time and resources on these freshmen. For instance, we meet Audie, a ninth-grader who shows not an iota of interest in his class work or respect for the school's employees but nonetheless monopolizes their time. Finally, enough is enough and the administrators kick him out--but only after they have wasted untold hours chasing him through the hallways between classes. We also see the uninspiring workings of a city-mandated Saturday "attendance court," which parents of chronically-truant students (mostly freshmen, the principal tells us) are required to attend. The students sit there dumbly as their parents (or parent, more often) express either mild concern, helpless despair, or outrage at the school. In no single case does one get the feeling that attendance will improve. Again, the clearest conclusion one draws from the scene is that a tremendous amount of time and attention is being devoted to the students least likely to benefit from it. Of course, one senses, too, as another reviewer (and Fordham staffer) points out in his review, that regardless of how they spend their time, many of Douglass's employees are simply ineffective in their jobs. These are just a couple of the factors that make times hard at Douglass. Watch the film yourself and see more of them revealed.

Center for American Progress
June 2008

Here the Center for American Progress offers four papers on "comparability," or the lack thereof, in school district spending practices. Comparability has a technical meaning: districts must fund schools "comparably" before federal Title I funds can be added. But comparability also has a colloquial meaning, which is that districts too often spend less on schools serving the neediest students. Marguerite Roza (who authored one of these papers) has previously written that district budgeting practices mask the true costs of teachers (the more experienced and expensive of whom gravitate toward less-needy schools) and can unevenly distribute other resources. In her paper for CAP, Roza revisits these challenges and argues that, within the context of Title I, simply "forcing districts to equalize dollar expenditures would restore the original intent of comparability." In another paper, Phyllis McClure offers a detailed, left-leaning history of Title I. Ross Wiener's paper analyzes where potential changes to Title I would foster comparability. He sides with McClure's activist approach and argues that Congress should "require states to assess and attain equity in curricular offerings, instructional support materials, and facilities to support instruction." The final chapter offers something different; Matt Hill of the Oakland Unified School District explains its use of weighted student funding (WSF), or "Results Based Budgeting," which has effectively eliminated funding disparities by allocating per-pupil budgets to schools rather than centrally distributing teachers and other resources. The volume, overall, offers enough differences of opinion to give it some spark, though the authors (unsurprisingly) agree on the core principle that achieving fair funding in all schools, especially those serving the neediest students, should be a paramount goal for education reformers. You can find it here.

This is school-reform week in the Bay State, where Governor Deval Patrick is finally announcing a series of policy proposals that would amount to the biggest changes in state education law in fifteen years. What's not clear is whether these will be, ahem, changes we can believe in, or whether the legislature will even find the money to fund any of them. (Patrick is sketchy about the money part. "We're building a house," he said. "You design it first and then cost it out. We will pay for it.") Many of his proposals amount to "more": more pre-school, more supports for children aged zero to five, more pay for teachers in high-need schools or subjects. But a couple of ill-considered proposals amount to "less is more." First: it appears that he's reneging on his promise to snap the state cap on charter schools. Which is a shame, as the Massachusetts charter program is among the nation's best. Second, on teachers' contracts, he's proposing a single statewide agreement as a way to save local districts time and money. That's an intriguing notion; put into practice, however, we predict a huge give-away for the unions--among the governor's key backers. With all of these proposals, the devil's in Deval's details, but we have to thank to the governor for this: he's given America's ed-policy wonks lots to chew on in the dog days of summer ahead.

"Patrick rolls out plan to boost teacher quality," by Tania deLuzuriaga, Boston Globe, June 25, 2008

"Patrick presents plans for education," by Tania deLuzuriaga, Boston Globe, June 24, 2005

"Patrick targets gaps in learning," by Tania deLuzuriaga, Boston Globe, June 23, 2008

Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal (see above) earned a victory last week when the state legislature voted to implement a voucher program for New Orleans that he supports. The bill, which received bipartisan support, introduces a venture that will start small (maximum participation is 1,500) and offer vouchers only to students in grades k-3. But its accountability measures are promising. Voucher students will sit for Louisiana state tests, for one, and schools that have operated for less than two years will need to receive state permission for voucher pupils to compose more than 20 percent of their enrollments. Those seem like reasonable ways to ensure that public money is put to proper use. As state Representative Walter Leger III said, "When you spend public funds on private enterprises, you need to make sure you get what you pay for." 

"Voucher bill wins final legislative passage," by Bill Barrow, New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 18, 2008

New Orleans, June 25, 2008: In all the obvious ways, this week's National Charter Schools Conference resembled other major conclaves in big-city convention centers: thousands of people being beckoned by hundreds of "exhibitors" with their stands, stalls, slick pitches, and free samples, as well as by dozens and dozens of "break out" sessions on every imaginable topic. A couple of major "keynote" talks, including one by the governor and one by the organizing organization's own head. Award ceremonies with much applause. And innumerable corridor conversations, side meetings, job explorations, reunions, and such.

It also resembled other conferences in reviving New Orleans: sweaty walks to fabulous restaurants and lookalike hotels; much drinking; a surfeit of dubious jazz and (LOUD) music; a handy casino; and more tacky shopping opportunities than anybody needs. (Attendees were also given opportunities to volunteer on a couple of reconstruction projects.)

This was, however, a conference about charter schools, organized by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, and it was dedicated to "achieving academic excellence at scale." That's an unimpeachably worthy goal and the conference did more than most to advance it. Here are a few glimpses:

• The Alliance issued its long-awaited, much-needed "framework for academic quality," the product of a major project to spell out academic benchmarks and metrics for successful charter schools, intended to be used by school operators and authorizers alike as a tool by which to monitor and--one hopes--evaluate school performance and enforce quality standards. It's a first rate piece of work (see it here), to be followed by further standard-setting work in areas such as charter-school finances. Meanwhile, this publication is a fit companion to NACSA's principles for quality charter-school authorizing (see here) and suggests that the charter movement is making the right moves both to orient itself to quality and to create the means for self-policing. (We all know what the alternatives to self-policing are--and they're not pretty.)
  
• Post-Katrina New Orleans being the country's foremost testing ground for "charter schools at scale," participants were invited to visit some of the city's strongest charters and heard from charter-friendly state education superintendent Paul G. Pastorek, who made clear that the principles of school choice, diversity, and autonomy-in-return-for accountability will guide him and his policies far beyond Orleans parish. Wunderkind governor Bobby Jindal turned up, too, lauding the city's (and state's) considerable progress on the charter front--and Louisiana's brand-new school-voucher program as well. Across multiple fronts, he's one impressive public official.  
  
• The major national private funders of charter schools turned up as well, indeed they were all over the place--top staffers from Gates, Walton, Broad, Fisher, and more--meeting with grantees and strategizing how best private dollars can help turn this extraordinary New Orleans experiment into a success. (Much talk of Washington and Newark, too.)
  
• The National Alliance conferred several well-earned prizes, inducting three women into its "Hall of Fame" who have done as much as anyone in the land to advance and strengthen the charter movement: Ember Reichgott Junge of Minnesota, who authored the country's first charter law; Yvonne Chan of California, founder and dynamic take-no-prisoners principal of the country's first "conversion" charter, the acclaimed Vaughn Next Century Learning Center in Los Angeles; and the amazing Linda Brown of Massachusetts, coach, advisor, and trainer of successful charter leaders and now head of the outstanding program called "Building Excellent Schools."
  
• Finally, the Alliance did some important internal housekeeping, radically downsizing its own bloated board of directors into a fighting-weight team chaired by the very able (and laser-focused, and Fordham trustee) Bruno V. Manno.

Charter devotees still have plenty left to do to scale up and replicate good schools (not nearly enough of these), to tone up mediocre schools (far too many, alas), and to transform or shutter bad schools (again, too many for comfort.) External political threats also abound in many locales--Louisiana being more the exception than the rule--and some basic public policies bearing on charters (facilities funding, above all) continue to demand radical surgery. But this movement is on an upward trajectory. "Still we rise" was the conference theme in New Orleans, and it felt about right to me.

Kristen Graham of the Philadelphia Inquirer begins her reportage about the city's experiences with private operators of public schools with this sentence: "In a blow to the Philadelphia School District's historic privatization experiment, the School Reform Commission voted yesterday to seize six schools from outside managers and warned them that they are in danger of losing 20 others if progress is not made." A blow to the experiment? Nay, Ms. Graham--the revocation of several management contracts is an indication that the experiment is in fact working as intended. Thirty-eight Philly schools are currently run by private companies, and under the current initiative 16 percent of these, those that have been chronically failing, will return to district control. Thirty-two percent had their contracts extended (boffo for them) and the remainder were told that they have another year to demonstrate significant performance gains or face possible loss of contract. Such a policy "puts providers on notice that we consider they have made just limited progress for children, and that's not good enough," the district's new chief executive, Arlene Ackerman, said. Doesn't sound to us like a blow to the experiment. Though it would be better if she were also adding some low-performing district schools to the "outsourcing" list.  

"Phila. taking back 6 privatized schools," by Kristen A. Graham, Philadelphia Inquirer, June 19, 2008

How dismaying to read about the 17 girls at Gloucester (MA) High School who, some say, made a pact to become pregnant together. What about finishing high school? Going to college? And then we learn that the high school intends to provide free daycare for their babies. I've been wrestling with this business of situating childcare centers in high schools for use by teen moms. (One has existed at Gloucester High since 1996.) Is it a good idea for public high schools to provide on-site childcare for their student-mommies?

First, some relevant research. Recent national teen pregnancy rates (girls ages 15-19) declined 5 percent between 2002 and 2004 and 38 percent from 1990 to 2004 (to 72 pregnancies per 1000 girls). This good news may be due, in part, to the programs out there aimed to prevent teen pregnancy--some of which have decent records of effectiveness relative to certain teen attitudes and behaviors (see here, here, and here). Still, according to 2005 data, most teens report being sexually active (62 percent of high school seniors have had intercourse at least once). And estimates by The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancies indicate that teen childbearing cost taxpayers $9.1 billion in 2004 (based on factors such as lost tax revenue, public assistance, and health care for children), most of which falls upon state and local governments.

There is much less research, however, on the impacts of school-based childcare centers on teen mothers (and, for that matter, on the larger school population). My quick scan, in fact, identified just one study. Yale analysts examined a school-based childcare and parent support program over three years (1995-1998). They found that the 52 low-income teen mothers using the service experienced overall improvement in their GPAs, promotion to the next grade (or graduation), and no repeat childbirths. (Similar anecdotal information is presented in isolated news reports, like this one out of Fairfax, VA.)

So supporting teen mothers in various ways seems to be a good idea. Less clear is whether this support must occur within the school walls. In fact, a study like this one--which found that free daycare helped mothers become self-supporting--casts doubt on whether it's the convenience factor or the free factor of school-based programs that makes the positive difference for teen moms.

Unfortunately, decent data are scarce regarding how many of these school-based daycare (versus healthcare) programs exist, where they are, what they cost and who exactly is covering those costs. Absent solid numbers, I'll turn to another valuable source for informed decision making--namely, common sense.

Does common sense tell us that providing school-based childcare for teen moms is a good idea? Let's use the Gloucester story to investigate.

First, the head of Gloucester High School's daycare organization said that once students become pregnant, they "are happy we are there and the data supports this." But is this really a reason to champion the cause of school daycare programs? Who would not be happy to receive free child care? Who wouldn't sing the praises of their own program?

Second: Asked whether having a daycare center at the school might encourage pupils to have babies, Gloucester Superintendent Chris Farmer responded, "I think that is hard to believe. Clearly if we can keep them in school, it gives them a better chance in the future." The relationship between school-based daycare and pregnancy isn't causal, but doesn't common sense tell us that it sure lowers the "cost" to teens of having babies if they know someone will take care of their newborn five days a week for free--and at their own school?

Third: We learn that the Gloucester School Committee and others will begin "debating a comprehensive policy regarding teen pregnancy--which is expected to include a recommendation on whether to provide confidential contraception services." I hate the slippery slope argument but here it's fitting. If we (read me, if you like) are already uncomfortable with providing school-based daycare, doesn't common sense tell us that its mere presence may open up a Pandora's box of related, complex questions? Are we really prepared to say that because schools operate "in loco parentis," they should now dispense contraceptives? (Apparently, yes.)

And now for the underwhelming common sense approach finale. It's simply this: What kind of message are we sending to students when we house daycare centers for them in their schools? What might they think when they walk past such a center in a converted classroom every day? When they see cute babies in the hallways before and after school?  Does not the mere existence of in-school daycare signal that schools are legitimizing teens' poor choices? Is this a definite perverse incentive?

By all means, let's help teen mothers graduate from high school and make better lives for themselves and their children. Let's provide help to their disadvantaged offspring so they can have a healthy start in this world--perhaps through discounted or even free off-site daycare programs. I'm all for it. Let's just not use our high school facilities to do it. High schools already have enough to do.

Construction workers hurting from the roiled real estate market should head to Los Angeles, where the school district is feverishly adding square footage even as its enrollment declines. The Los Angeles Unified School District has lost 57,000 students over the past decade; fewer families are moving to the city and the Latino birth rate has fallen. But this enrollment decline began after local voters approved, ten years ago, a $20-billion capital improvement project to deal with classrooms that were, at the time, genuinely overcrowded. Now, however, the district estimates that in 2012 its schools will seat only 560,000 pupils in facilities that could handle 670,000. The extra room will allow many schools to remove portable classroom trailers and give teachers more office space, of course. But money doesn't grow on palm trees, and according to the Los Angeles Times, the district is still moving forward "with plans to build some schools in areas of dwindling population and others that are too large...." That doesn't sound smart or flexible in an era when big-city school districts, to retain students, need to be smart and flexible--and when it's still next to impossible for Los Angeles charter schools to gain access to decent facilities.

"L.A. Unified will have more seats, but fewer students to fill them," by Evelyn Larrubia, Los Angeles Times, June 23, 2008

Center for American Progress
June 2008

Here the Center for American Progress offers four papers on "comparability," or the lack thereof, in school district spending practices. Comparability has a technical meaning: districts must fund schools "comparably" before federal Title I funds can be added. But comparability also has a colloquial meaning, which is that districts too often spend less on schools serving the neediest students. Marguerite Roza (who authored one of these papers) has previously written that district budgeting practices mask the true costs of teachers (the more experienced and expensive of whom gravitate toward less-needy schools) and can unevenly distribute other resources. In her paper for CAP, Roza revisits these challenges and argues that, within the context of Title I, simply "forcing districts to equalize dollar expenditures would restore the original intent of comparability." In another paper, Phyllis McClure offers a detailed, left-leaning history of Title I. Ross Wiener's paper analyzes where potential changes to Title I would foster comparability. He sides with McClure's activist approach and argues that Congress should "require states to assess and attain equity in curricular offerings, instructional support materials, and facilities to support instruction." The final chapter offers something different; Matt Hill of the Oakland Unified School District explains its use of weighted student funding (WSF), or "Results Based Budgeting," which has effectively eliminated funding disparities by allocating per-pupil budgets to schools rather than centrally distributing teachers and other resources. The volume, overall, offers enough differences of opinion to give it some spark, though the authors (unsurprisingly) agree on the core principle that achieving fair funding in all schools, especially those serving the neediest students, should be a paramount goal for education reformers. You can find it here.

Directed by Alan Raymond and Susan Raymond
Home Box Office
June 2008

This documentary has already been dissected in several places, but it's almost two hours long so there's plenty more to say about it. Though it offers a few uplifting scenes, Hard Times at Douglass High is mostly a picture of failure and despair in one Baltimore school. The year before it was filmed, only 10 percent of Douglass students passed the Maryland state English exam and only one percent passed in algebra. By the end of their freshman year, 50 percent of the school's ninth graders will either drop out, move, or stop attending. That's despite the fact that the school's faculty and staff spend inordinate time and resources on these freshmen. For instance, we meet Audie, a ninth-grader who shows not an iota of interest in his class work or respect for the school's employees but nonetheless monopolizes their time. Finally, enough is enough and the administrators kick him out--but only after they have wasted untold hours chasing him through the hallways between classes. We also see the uninspiring workings of a city-mandated Saturday "attendance court," which parents of chronically-truant students (mostly freshmen, the principal tells us) are required to attend. The students sit there dumbly as their parents (or parent, more often) express either mild concern, helpless despair, or outrage at the school. In no single case does one get the feeling that attendance will improve. Again, the clearest conclusion one draws from the scene is that a tremendous amount of time and attention is being devoted to the students least likely to benefit from it. Of course, one senses, too, as another reviewer (and Fordham staffer) points out in his review, that regardless of how they spend their time, many of Douglass's employees are simply ineffective in their jobs. These are just a couple of the factors that make times hard at Douglass. Watch the film yourself and see more of them revealed.